CRM D0011092.A2/Final
April 2005
Non-Citizens in Today’s Military:
Final Report
Anita U. Hattiangadi • Aline O. Quester
Gary Lee, SgtMaj, USMC (Ret.) • Diana S. Lien
Ian D. MacLeod
with
David L. Reese • Robert W. Shuford
4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850
Approved for distribution:
April 2005
Henry S. Griffis, Director
Workforce, Education and Training Team
Resource Analysis Division
This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue.
It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy.
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N00014-00-D-0700.
For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123.
Copyright  2005 The CNA Corporation
Contents
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Characteristics of the non-citizen population . . . . . . . . .
Citizenship categories and eligibility for military service.
Characteristics of non-citizens of “recruitable age”
(18 to 24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Share with Legal Permanent Residency . . . . . . .
Geographic distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Educational attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Country of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
English language ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trends in the non-citizen population . . . . . . . .
Non-citizens in the military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-citizen accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Educational attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Birth country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Race/ethnic distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
9
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
11
11
11
13
14
17
18
19
21
21
22
22
24
Non-citizens: street to force. . . . .
Recruiting . . . . . . . . . . .
Proof of LPR status . . . .
Background investigations
Proof of education . . . .
English proficiency . . . .
New language initiatives .
Occupational restrictions.
Reenlistment standards . .
Service preference . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
27
27
28
28
29
31
32
34
35
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
Naturalization of non-citizen servicemembers . .
Legal framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recent changes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Service handling of non-citizen applications
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timing of application. . . . . . . . . .
Possible problems with applications . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
37
37
38
39
39
40
42
42
Additional incentives to gaining citizenship . . . . . . .
Special pays and bonuses for language proficiency
Other incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits of citizenship beyond the military . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
45
47
47
Statistical analyses of success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Independent variables for attrition logit regressions . .
Non-citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Educational background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
High quality: Tier I and AFQT greater than
49th percentile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEP and DEP greater than or equal to (ge)
3 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summer accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accession waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marital/dependency status at accession . . . . . .
Data for the analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results: 3-month attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overall 3-month attrition results . . . . . . . . . .
Three-month attrition results by service . . . . . .
Results: 36-month attrition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-month attrition results for logistic regressions .
36-month attrition results by service . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
52
52
53
. .
53
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
59
62
63
65
. .
. .
69
71
. .
. .
. .
75
76
79
Who acquires citizenship while in the military? . . . . . . .
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of enlisted personnel who became
citizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Likelihood of becoming a citizen while in the military
Proxy of time-to-citizenship while in the military . . . .
ii
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Appendix A: More on policies and procedures for recruiting
non-citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification of LPR status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Entrance National Agency Check (ENTNAC) . . .
National Agency Check/Local Agency Check/
Credit Check (NACLC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proof of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marine Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
English proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waiver requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Occupational restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
89
89
91
91
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
94
96
Appendix B: More on the Army Translator Aide (09L)
pilot program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
Appendix C: Variable definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Appendix D: Three-month attrition regressions . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix E: Thirty-six-month attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Appendix F: Non-citizen accessions who became
U.S. citizens while in the military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix G: Time-to-citizenship regressions . . . . . . . . . . 115
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
iii
Executive summary
Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) are eligible to enlist in the military
and have done so successfully since the Revolutionary War. In fact,
roughly 35,000 non-citizens are serving in the active military, and
about 8,000 enlist each year. As the military services continue to face
a difficult recruiting environment, it is important to recognize the
growth in the youth population due to immigration and the potential
for success of non-citizen servicemembers.
Non-citizen servicemembers offer several benefits to the military.
First, they are more diverse than citizen recruits—not just racially and
ethnically, but also linguistically and culturally. This diversity is particularly valuable as the United States faces the challenges of the Global
War on Terrorism. Second, we find that non-citizens do extremely
well in the military. In fact, black, Asian and Pacific Islander (API),
and Hispanic non-citizens have 3-month attrition rates that are 7 to 8
percentage points below those for white citizens. Furthermore, noncitizens have 36-month attrition rates that are 9 to 20 percentage
points lower than the attrition rates of white citizens.
Since 9/11, several changes in policy and practice have taken place
that may encourage more non-citizens to consider military service—
for example, the executive order allowing non-citizens serving in the
U.S. military to apply for expedited citizenship after only 1 day of
active-duty service. The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act
accomplished the following:
• Reduced the peacetime waiting period for U.S. citizenship
application
• Allowed applicants to be granted emergency leave and priority
government transportation to complete citizenship processing
• Eliminated all application fees for non-citizen servicemembers
1
• Allowed for the finalization of military citizenship applications
to take place at U.S. consulates, embassies, and overseas U.S.
military installations
• Gave special immigration preference to the immediate family
of non-citizens awarded posthumous citizenship.
The military services and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have worked together to streamline the citizenship
application process for servicemembers. Also, the services have initiated several programs (such as the Army’s Translator Aide (09L) pilot
program) that might be particularly appealing to non-citizens.
Non-citizens who become citizens can reap other benefits from military service, such as the ability to apply for security clearances and to
receive substantial bonuses for language skills. Having citizenship
opens up a broader array of opportunities, including jobs, to servicemembers. Finally, naturalized servicemembers get other rights and
privileges of U.S. citizenship, such as the right to vote, the automatic
granting of citizenship to dependent children, the ability to sponsor
family members living overseas, special naturalization or LPR preference for their immediate family, free entry and exit from the United
States, and the ability to hold public office.
Many non-citizen servicemembers obtain their citizenship while in
the military. In fact, we estimate that non-citizen recruits entering the
Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps from FY95 to FY02 had a 47-, 16-, or
33-percent chance, respectively, of having U.S. citizenship recorded
in their personnel files by September 2003.
Although there have been great strides in making it simpler and more
convenient to apply for citizenship while serving in the military, even
more could be done to facilitate the process. Our recommendations
include (a) providing military recruiters with information on what
documents and information non-citizen recruits will need if they
want to apply for citizenship while serving in the military and (b)
developing materials for applicants or new recruits that explain eligibility for expedited citizenship, the benefits of filing for citizenship
while in the military, and the benefits of attaining citizenship. We also
2
recommend investigating reasons for differences in service policies
regarding non-citizens and publicizing the results of such a study.
Recommendations that may be beyond the purview of Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) Accession Policy include (a) having the
services commit to more structured installation-based assistance to
help non-citizen servicemembers with their citizenship applications
and (b) providing installation-based immigration assistance to the
dependents of servicemembers.
3
Introduction
In FY04, this country spent $2.7 billion to recruit 182,000 active-duty
enlisted servicemembers. One overlooked source of military manpower is immigrants and their families. In fact, much of the growth in
the recruitment-eligible population will come from immigration.
The United States is a country of immigrants. Recent waves of immigration have made today’s foreign-born population the largest in U.S.
history—11.7 percent in 2003, up from 9.3 percent in 1995 [1, 2].
Immigrants will fuel much of the growth in the youth population.
About a third of the world's population is under age 15, and the overwhelming majority lives in developing countries. Because this large
bulge of future workers will have difficulty finding work in their native
countries, many may emigrate—either alone or with young families.
Of the 16 million foreign-born people who entered the United States
between 1990 and 2002, almost a quarter were under age 21.
Most immigrants will not be U.S. citizens, but many will become Legal
Permanent Residents. Between 1973 and 2002, an estimated 21.5 million people became LPRs.1 In 2002, more than 1 million immigrants
became LPRs in addition to 10.4 million people who were already
LPRs.2 Over two-thirds of them, 7.8 million, had been in the United
States long enough to be eligible for naturalization.
LPRs are eligible to enlist in the Armed Forces; those with temporary
resident status (e.g., for study, business, or pleasure), refugee status,
or undocumented status are not eligible.3 In addition, male LPRs age
1.
About 8 million of them became citizens through naturalization or, in
the case of children under 18, their parents’ naturalization.
2.
This estimate allows for emigration, mortality, and people who entered
the country illegally and had their status converted to LPR. It also estimates the number of pre-1973 LPRs.
3.
Citizenship requirements cannot be waived, and the services cannot
sponsor a non-citizen for LPR status.
5
18 to 25 are required to register with the Selective Service. Citizenship
is required, however, for virtually all appointments as a commissioned, warrant, or National Guard officer.4 Many non-citizens view
the military as a way to serve their adopted country while gaining
useful skills. In fact, non-citizens have fought in the U.S. Armed
Forces since the Revolutionary War.
Figure 1 shows the population of “recruitable age” (defined as those
age 18 to 24) by citizenship status. Although most of these people are
citizens, about 4.1 percent are LPRs—which translates into roughly
1.5 million potential recruits.
Figure 1. Population of “recruitable” age, by citizenship statusa
18- to 24-year-old population
6.9%
4.1%
Citizen
LPR
Refugee
Other
4.1%= 1.5 million
potential LPR recruits
88.3%
a. These estimates were prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
He takes full responsibility for the accuracy and validity of the estimates. The views
expressed are those of CNA and should not be attributed to Dr. Passel, the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Average of 2000-2003 Current Population Survey.
Roughly 8,000 non-citizens enlist every year. The Navy accesses the
highest percentage of non-citizens, followed closely by the Marine
Corps and the Army. The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC)
4.
6
Some medical officers and chaplains are not required to have citizenship. Requirements are found in Sections 532 and 591 of Title 10 and
Section 313 of Title 32. In addition, some offer programs have additional requirements that must be met for officers whose immediate
family members are non-citizens.
estimates that about 35,000 non-citizens currently serve in the active
military, with an additional 12,000 serving in the Guard and Reserve.5
In 2003, the four services had the following numbers of non-citizens:
• Navy—15,880 non-citizen Sailors
• Marine Corps—6,440 non-citizen Marines
• Army—5,596 non-citizen Soldiers
• Air Force—3,056 non-citizen Airmen [4].
There are several reasons why it is important to study non-citizens in
the military at this time. First, although non-citizens constitute a relatively small share of accessions and the force, their proportion is
expected to grow over time. In fact, much of the growth in the U.S.
youth population over the next two decades will result from immigration. Second, the challenges facing the U.S. military in the Global
War on Terrorism (GWOT) suggest that the linguistic and cultural
diversity non-citizens bring to the services are especially valuable.
Third, many non-citizens are interested in expedited citizenship for
servicemembers enacted in a post-9/11 executive order, further
expanding the pool of potential recruits. In this environment, OSD
and the military services need to be aware of opportunities and challenges they may face in recruiting non-citizens. Fourth, increased
security concerns may restrict future job opportunities available to
non-citizen recruits—potentially undermining even the best
recruiter efforts. Finally, information on the performance of noncitizens in the military is important to evaluating their participation
in the Armed Services.
5.
A 2004 article alleged that there were over 16,000 servicemembers
whose citizenship was listed as “unknown” [3]. The article caused considerable concern by concluding that, “That’s about one in 100 activeduty military members who might be U.S. citizens, legal immigrants—
or just about anybody else.” When the services investigated this, they
found that most of the “unknowns” in the Navy were officers—for whom
citizenship is a requirement. In some cases, data entry had been incomplete. DMDC has been working to cleanse the database.
7
Characteristics of the non-citizen population6
The 2000 census provides a profile of the U.S. non-citizen population.7 However, neither the census nor large sample surveys provide
data on non-citizens’ resident status: Legal Permanent Residents
(green card holders), refugee arrivals (who are eligible to apply for
green cards), legal non-immigrants (temporary workers/students),
and undocumented aliens.
Immigration researchers, therefore, must estimate the legal resident
population. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a set
of estimates in May 2004 [5]. Between 1973 and 2002, an estimated
21.5 million people received LPR status. About 8 million of them
became permanent citizens through naturalization or, in the case of
children, the naturalization of their parents. An estimated 11.4 million people were LPRs in September 2002. (Over two-thirds of them
had been in the U.S. long enough to be eligible for naturalization.)8
Mexicans made up 27 percent of LPRs, followed distantly by people
from the Philippines (5 percent), India, China, and the Dominican
Republic (4 percent) [5].
New security measures may be affecting the number of green cards
being processed and granted. A recent report found that the number
of pending green card applications reached 6.2 million at the end of
6.
Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, former director of the U.S. Census
Bureau, and Dr. Jeffrey Passell, Senior Researcher at the Urban Institute, contributed greatly to this section. We are grateful for their help,
and we assume full responsibility for any errors.
7.
Unlike several other countries, the U.S. census tallies everyone who lives
in the United States on the census day (the first of April in years ending
in zero), not just citizens.
8.
This estimate allows for emigration, mortality, and people who entered
the country illegally and had their status converted to LPR. It also estimates the number of pre-1973 LPRs.
9
FY03, and only 705,827 green cards were granted in FY03, down from
1.06 million in 2002 (see figure 2) [6].
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
Number of Green Cards Issued
Figure 2. Number of green cards issueda
a. Source: [5].
Citizenship categories and eligibility for military service
Table 1 details the different citizenship status categories and whether
people in those categories are eligible for military enlistments.
Table 1. Standard terminology on citizenship and immigration status
Citizen
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Status
Eligible?
Description
Permanent
Yes
Native-born U.S. citizens
Permanent
Yes
Naturalized U.S. citizens
Permanent
Yes
LPRs (also called Legal Resident Aliens or green card holders)
Permanent
Yes
U.S. nationals (those from American Samoa and Swains Island)
Permanent
No
Refugeesa (most adjust their status to LPR in 2-3 years)
Temporary
No
Non-immigrants or legal temporary residents (primarily temporary work
visas or student visas)
Includes foreign students, diplomats, intracompany transferees, au pairs,
and “hi-tech” guest workers (H-1B visas)
Temporary
No
Undocumented (illegals)—visa overstayers, clandestine entrants, etc.
a. These are individuals admitted into the U.S. as refugees, parolees, or asylum seekers.
10
Note that service policy seems to govern the enlistment of dual U.S.
citizens. For example, the Army does not allow the enlistment of dual
U.S. citizens unless they declare citizenship for one country [7, p. 5].
The Air Force does allow dual U.S. citizens to enlist, but those who do
not renounce their citizenship to the non-U.S. country are treated
like non-citizens for classification purposes and are not eligible for
clearances [8, p. 3].
Characteristics of non-citizens of “recruitable age” (18 to 24)
Total number
The census-based profile of the non-citizen population serves as a
useful estimate of the number and characteristics of non-citizens in
the recruitable pool. The 2000 census found 18.5 million noncitizens, amounting to 6.5 percent of the total population. Fully 2.9
million (15.6 percent) of them were age 18 to 24. More than half (57
percent) of these recruitable-age non-citizens were men. Thus, there
were about 1.7 million male, non-citizen 18- to 24-year-olds in 2000.
Share with Legal Permanent Residency
Using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), Dr. Jeffrey
Passel has produced detailed demographic estimates of the LPR population for the U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 3 shows the residency
status of non-citizen 18- to 24-year-olds. As the figure shows, only a
little over a third of the population of non-citizens of recruitable age
are LPRs. That translates into about 1.5 million LPRs (or green card
holders) age 18 to 24 whom the U.S. Armed Forces can potentially
recruit. Currently, the military recruits only about 180,000 new
recruits annually.
Geographic distribution
Table 2 shows the geographic distribution of the LPR population age
18 to 24. The last column of the table reports the share of that population that holds at least a high school diploma.
11
Figure 3. Residency status of the non-citizen 18- to 24-year-old
populationa
7.4%
35.4%
51.3%
5.9%
LPR
Refugee
Undocumented
Non-immigrant
a. These estimates were prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute, Washington,
DC. He takes full responsibility for the accuracy and validity of the estimates. The
views expressed are those of CNA and should not be attributed to Dr. Passel, the
Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Average of 2000-2003 CPS.
Table 2. Geographic distribution of LPRs age 18 to 24a
State or region
Number
California
491,000
New York
212,000
Texas
151,000
Florida
94,000
Mountain States (MT, ID, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, and NV)
94,000
Illinois
93,000
South (NC, SC, GA, KY, TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, and OK)
72,000
New Jersey
69,000
Pacific States (WA, OR, AK, and HI)
63,000
Mid-Atlantic States
58,000
Upper Midwestern States (OH, IN, MI, and WI)
58,000
New England (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, and CT)
55,000
Plains States (MN, IA, ND, SD, NE, and KS)
30,000
Total
1,540,000
Percentage in
Region with
Region/state
H.S.+
31.9
59.2
13.8
64.0
9.8
52.4
6.1
66.2
6.1
56.9
6.0
57.1
4.7
58.9
4.5
76.5
4.1
59.2
3.8
70.2
3.8
69.8
3.6
66.1
2.0
58.6
100.0
61.2
a. Prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Average of 2000-2003 CPS.
12
Educational attainment
Because LPRs are the largest non-citizen population eligible for
recruitment, we primarily focus on them. But we also want to look at
the entire non-citizen group since many could eventually become
LPRs. Although 18- to 24-year-old non-citizens are slightly more likely
to have completed high school than non-citizens as a whole, nearly
half of them (48 percent, compared with 25 percent of all U.S. residents in that age group) have not, and, thus, are unlikely to be
recruited.9 About half of 18- to 24-year-old non-citizens are highschool graduates, and 28 percent of these young non-citizens have
some post-high-school education (compared to 46 percent of all 18- to
24-year-olds). Young non-citizen women have slightly better educational attainment than young men; a third of non-citizen women aged
18 to 24 have some postsecondary education, compared with less than
a fourth of the men that age (see figure 4).
Figure 4. Educational attainment of non-citizens age 18 to 24,
by gendera
Percentage
100
75
50
25
0
Less than H.S.
H.S. grad
Male
More than H.S.
Female
a. Prepared by Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, 2000 census, Public Use Microdata
Sample, 1% tabulation.
9.
DoD policy requires that no more than 10 percent of recruits be Tier II
(generally test-based diploma holders, like GEDs) or Tier III (nondegree holders).
13
Limiting our analysis to LPRs reduces the share of 18- to 24-year-olds
with less than a high school diploma and increases the share with
more than a high school diploma (see figure 5). Only about a quarter
of those with less than a high school diploma are currently enrolled in
school. Thus, 330,000 18- to 24-year-old LPRs are still in high school,
340,000 18- to 24-year-old LPRs are high school graduates, and
537,000 have some schooling beyond high school.
Figure 5. Educational attainment of legal permanent residents
age 18 to 24, by gendera
100
Percentage
75
50
25
0
Less than H.S.
H.S. grad
Male
More than H.S.
Female
a. These estimates were prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute, Washington,
DC. He takes full responsibility for the accuracy and validity of the estimates. The
views expressed are those of CNA and should not be attributed to Dr. Passel, the
Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Average of 2000-2003 CPS.
Country of origin
Because of Mexico’s proximity to the United States and the differences in economic opportunities in the two countries, Mexico was the
birth country of nearly half of non-citizens age 18 to 24 in 2000 (see
table 3). Mexican non-citizens are disproportionately male and young
adults. Young adults make up a smaller proportion of the population
that comes from other regions, especially Europe. Non-citizens from
“Other America,” however, the second major source of young adult
non-citizens, also are disproportionately male and young.
14
Table 3. Number of non-citizens age 18 to 24 by region of origina
Region
Number
1,407,040
670,600
514,447
204,744
79,159
14,132
Mexico
Other Americac
Asia
Europe
Africa
Oceania
Percent male
61%
55%
52%
50%
50%
52%
Percent all agesb
20%
15%
13%
10%
14%
13%
a. Prepared by Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, 2000 census, Public Use Microdata
Sample, 1%, tabulation.
b. This means, for example, that non-citizens age 18 to 24 constitute 20 percent of the
entire non-citizen population from Mexico.
c. All countries of North and South America, with the exception of Mexico.
Looking at 18- to 24-year-old non-citizens’ educational attainment by
region of origin (figure 6) shows that the predominance of Mexicans
accounts for the relatively low educational level of 18- to 24-year-old
non-citizens. Over two-thirds of this most plentiful group of
recruitable-age non-citizens has not completed high school—a basic
prerequisite for a military career.
Figure 6. Educational attainment of non-citizens age 18 to 24 by region
of origina
Mexico
Other America
Asia
Europe
Africa
Oceania
0
25
50
75
100
Percentage
H.S. grad
More than H.S.
a. Prepared by Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, 2000 census, Public Use Microdata
Sample, 1% tabulation.
15
In contrast, 18- to 24-year-old non-citizens from Asia, Europe, Africa,
and Oceania have relatively high educational levels. However, many of
these non-citizens probably are in the United States to further their
education, making them poor prospects for military recruiters.10
There are still, however, large numbers of well-educated young noncitizens whose legal status does qualify them for military service.
Figure 7 shows educational attainment for LPRs age 18 to 24. This
figure does not show Mexico separately but includes it in the Latin
America/Caribbean group. Although over half of LPRs from this
group have not completed high school, a large number of them—
915,000 18- to 24-year-old LPRs in the Latin America/Caribbean
group—have completed high school.
Figure 7. Educational attainment of LPRs (18-24) by region of origina,b,c
S. & E. Asia
Latin America/ Carribean
Asia/Middle East
Europe/ Canada
Africa/ Oceania
Other
0
25
50
75
100
Percentage
H.S. grad
More than H.S.
a. Prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute. Average of 2000-2003 CPS.
b. Europe includes all States of the former Soviet Union, including the Central Asian
Republics; Canada includes “North America, not elsewhere classified”; “Asia/Middle
East” includes only countries of continental Asia from Turkey in the west to Iran in the
east (no Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union); S. and E. Asia includes
Asian countries from Afghanistan eastward; Latin America/Caribbean includes all
countries south of the U.S.; “Other” is almost all unknown country of birth.
c. Total size of 18- to 24-year-old legal permanent resident populations by region of
origin: S. & E. Asia = 294,000; Latin America/Caribbean = 915,000; Asia/Middle East
= 38,000; Europe/Canada = 177,000; Africa/Oceania = 63,000; Other = 54,000.
10. Non-citizens on student visas are not eligible for enlistment.
16
English language ability
The ability to speak English well or very well makes a non-citizen a
more attractive recruiting prospect. In 2000, 1.8 million non-citizens
age 18 to 24 either lived in an English-speaking household or
reported that they spoke English well.
Non-citizens from Mexico, however, were more likely than others to
lack English language ability—as were a large proportion of noncitizens from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere (see table 4).
Still, there are substantial numbers of Mexican immigrants in the 1824 age group who speak English well.
Table 4. English language ability of non-citizens age 18 to 24a,b
Region
Mexico
Other America
Asia
Europe
Africa
Oceania
In Englishspeaking
household
5%
18%
7%
18%
17%
35%
Speaks English
well
37%
54%
82%
82%
75%
60%
Does not speak
English well
58%
28%
11%
9%
8%
5%
a. Prepared by Martha Farnsworth Riche, 2000 census, Public Use Microdata Sample,
1%, tabulation.
b. The Ability to Speak English variable has a “not in universe” category that is “under
5” or answered no to “does this person speak a language other than English at
home?” Since the age group for this profile is 18-24, we call the “not in universe”
category “Speak English at home.” We combined the other categories: “very well”
and “well” became “well”; “not well” and “not at all” became “not well.”
Combining English language ability and the military's basic educational requirement shows that, in 2000, nearly 45 percent of
recruitable-age non-citizens from Mexico, along with 20 percent from
other Western Hemisphere countries, did not speak English well and
had not finished high school. In total, nearly 800,000 young noncitizens were doubly disadvantaged for military service, including
small numbers (less than 5 percent) of young non-citizens from Asia,
Europe, or Africa.
17
Although non-citizens of recruitable age are overwhelmingly from
the Western Hemisphere (especially Mexico), the subgroup relevant
to the military (with both high school graduation and English language ability) is more geographically varied. That said, however,
there are still substantial numbers of non-citizens of recruitable age
who are both high school graduates and fluent English speakers (see
figure 8). In all, figure 8 shows that there are 1.1 million non-citizens
who are of the appropriate educational level and English language
ability to potentially be eligible for military service.
Figure 8. Non-citizens age 18 to 24, high school graduate or better and
English language abilitya
400,000
350,000
Number
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Mexico
Other
America
Asia
Europe
Africa
Oceania
a. Prepared by Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, 2000 census, Public Use Microdata
Sample, 1%, tabulation.
Trends in the non-citizen population
The non-citizen population of recruitable age and educational quality is likely to grow. Today one in three of the world's citizens is under
age 15, and 99 percent of them are in developing countries where
finding employment for all of them may be difficult. Most people are
reluctant to leave their countries, but the number of youth reaching
working age is so large (given the population explosion of the latter
18
half of the 20th century) that even the small percentage that emigrate
will significantly increase the number of international migrants.11
In its current set of population projections, the U.S. Census Bureau
has revised upward its assumptions about future immigration. In the
past, the Bureau underestimated future immigration because it is difficult for an agency to assume that large numbers of people will enter
the country illegally (i.e., that another agency will fail in its job). As a
rule, economic conditions as well as fertility trends in the basic supply
countries—Mexico and other hemispheric neighbors—will provide a
guide to assessing the immigration outlook.
By the time people decide to emigrate, they often are older than
normal recruiting age. Thus, much of the non-citizen population that
recruiters can target will be the children of recent immigrants.
Non-citizens in the military
Non-citizens have served in the U.S. military for much of our country’s
history, including the War of 1812, the Civil War, and both World
Wars.12 Almost half of Army enlistees in the 1840s were immigrants
[10, p. 168], and more than 660,000 military veterans became citizens
through naturalization between 1862 and 2000 [11]. We now examine
the legal framework for the service of non-citizens and demographic
characteristics of non-citizens currently serving in the military.
Sections 3253 and 8253 of Title 10 state that a person must be an
American citizen or a lawful permanent resident to be eligible for
enlistment in the regular Army or Air Force in peacetime. 13
11. Even though fertility rates have fallen in most developing countries in
recent decades, the high rates that fueled the population explosion produced unprecedented numbers of parents. As individuals, these parents
may be having fewer children than their parents did; as a group, however, they are having more children. Furthermore, fertility rates have
remained high in Muslim countries and in much of Sub-Saharan Africa.
12. Reference [9] contains a comprehensive history of non-citizens in the
military.
13. There is not an equivalent Title 10 statute limiting enlistment in the Navy
and Marine Corps; in recruiting policy and practice, however, the same
requirements are applied. Those in Guam, Puerto Rico, parts of the
Canal Zone, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S. citizens.
19
Citizenship is required, however, in all services for virtually all
appointments as a commissioned officer, warrant officer, or National
Guard officer.14
In addition, special legislation targeting the enlistment of noncitizens has periodically been enacted.15 The Lodge Act of 1950 (and
subsequent Acts in 1951, 1955, and 1957), for example, permitted
non-citizen Eastern Europeans to enlist between 1950 and 1959.
Another example is the Navy’s recruitment of Filipino nationals. The
United States officially began recruiting Filipino nationals into the
U.S. Navy in the late 1940s, when it signed the Military Bases Agreement of 1947 allowing U.S. military bases in the Philippines. 16
Changes in the agreement and policy capped the number of Filipino
enlistments at 1,000 in 1952, 2,000 in 1954, and 400 from 1973 on.
Navy policy restricted Filipinos to the steward and mess attendant ratings from WWII until 1973. In total, over 35,000 Filipinos enlisted in
the Navy through the program between 1952 and 1991. The Navy
stopped recruiting Filipino nationals and closed its recruiting facilities in the region in 1992 because of the end of the Military Bases
Agreement, base closures, and force reduction measures [12].
Section 1426, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, allows an alien to be discharged from military service on the grounds that he or she is an
alien. This person, however, is permanently ineligible for U.S. citizenship. When enlisting in the military, Marine Corps applicants must
sign a statement that they understand this provision. Furthermore,
they must confirm that “I understand that this does not grant me the
14. There are some limited exceptions. For example, chaplains and certain
medical officers do not require citizenship. The requirements are
found in Sections 532 and 591 of Title 10 and Section 313 of Title 32.
For Reserve officer appointments, those who have previously served in
the Armed Forces or in the National Security Training Corps also are eligible, even if they are not citizens or LPRs (Section 12201 of Title 10).
15. Reference [9] presents a full history of legislation of this type.
16. The Philippines gained independence in 1946, so the Navy could no
longer recruit Sailors as it had when the Philippines was a U.S. colony.
In fact, over 6,000 Filipinos served in the Navy during World War I and
were allowed to serve in a range of ratings.
20
privilege or right to be discharged prior to completion of my
enlistment” [13, pp. 3-29]. To see how much meaning this provision
had, we examined Marine Corps separation records between 1990
and 2004, and found there was only one such separation.17 This provision may be more relevant in times of a draft.
Non-citizen accessions
Number
The number of non-citizen accessions by service has been fairly stable
since the late 1990s (see figure 9). As the largest service, the Army has
the largest number of non-citizen accessions, followed closely by the
Navy.
Figure 9. Number of non-citizen accessions, by servicea
Number of accessions
6000
Army
Air Force
Marine Corps
Navy
4000
2000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data.
When we examine non-citizens as a share of all accessions, the data
tell a different story. As figure 10 shows, the Navy has the largest share
17. DoD separation codes do not have the fidelity required to make this
determination for the other services.
21
of non-citizen accessions, probably because of its long-standing
recruitment of Filipinos. The Army and the Marine Corps are second,
although the Army shows a decrease in non-citizen accessions in the
last few years whereas the Marine Corps shows an increase. The Air
Force has a far smaller proportion of non-citizens than do the other
services.
Figure 10. Non-citizen accessions as a share of all accessions,
by servicea
Army
Percentage of accessions
8
Air Force
Marine Corps
Navy
6
4
2
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data.
Educational attainment
Figure 11 shows the educational attainment of citizen and non-citizen
recruits. Non-citizens are slightly more likely than citizens to have an
Associate or a Bachelor’s degree and somewhat less likely to have a
GED. In general, however, their educational backgrounds are very
similar.
Birth country
As figure 12 shows, the birth countries of non-citizen accessions are
quite diverse. The countries are listed in order of importance, with
Mexico, the Philippines, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and El
Salvador being the top five countries. Although many of the countries
are from the Americas, South Korea and Vietnam are high on the list.
22
In recent years, there also have been nontrivial numbers of accessions
from countries in the former Soviet bloc.
Percentage of accessions
Figure 11. Educational attainment of accessions, by citizenship statusa
100
80
60
40
20
0
GED
Adult Ed or 1
semester
college
HSDG
Non-citizens
Associate or
BA/BS degree
Citizens
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data.
Figure 12. Non-citizen accessions, by birth countrya
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mexico
Philippines
Jamaica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Haiti
Colombia
South Korea
Trinidad & Tobago
Peru
Vietnam
Nicaragua
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ecuador
Guyana
Guatemala
Cuba
Nigeria
Canada
Honduras
China
Thailand
UK
+ 198 more countries!
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data. FY95–FY03 accessions.
23
Figure 13 shows the top five foreign birth countries by service. Mexico
is the largest source of non-citizens for every service except the Navy
(for which the Philippines is still the largest source of non-citizen
accessions).
Figure 13. Top five foreign birth countries for non-citizen accessions,
by servicea
• Army
– Mexico, Jamaica, Philippines, South Korea, Dominican
Republic (39%)
• Air Force
– Mexico, Philippines, Jamaica, El Salvador, Colombia (43%)
• Marine Corps
– Mexico, Philippines, Jamaica, El Salvador, Dominican
Republic (43%)
• Navy
– Philippines, Mexico, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Haiti
(46%)
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data. FY95–FY03 accessions.
Race/ethnic distribution
Not surprisingly, the race/ethnic background of non-citizen accession is considerably more diverse than that for citizen accessions (see
figure 14). If the services wish to increase the diversity of their forces,
non-citizens offer a good source.
Although we usually think of diversity in terms of race and ethnicity,
diversity comes in many other forms. For example, non-citizen accessions also can enrich our militaries with their diverse cultural backgrounds and linguistic abilities.
24
Figure 14. Race/ethnic distribution of accessions, by citizenshipa
Citizens
Non-citizens
3% 2%
6%
14%
10%
23%
20%
15%
70%
37%
White
Black
Hispanic
API
Other
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data. For FY02 accessions.
25
Non-citizens: street to force
The treatment of non-citizens across the military services is not uniform—each service branch has different policies regarding the
recruitment,18 reenlistment, and use of non-citizen servicemembers.
This is unusual and may create different cross-service incentives for
non-citizens wishing to enlist in the military. It also may be time for
the Department of Defense to establish more uniformity in the treatment of non-citizens across the services.
Recruiting19
Proof of LPR status
Recruiters’ primary responsibility is to verify citizenship status. The
most important requirement for non-citizens is proof of LPR status—
either an I-551, popularly known as a green card, or a G-845, the military’s formal request for LPR verification to U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. In December 2002, these two forms became
the only acceptable proof of LPR. (Multiple forms of identification
were acceptable before that. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz’s 28
October 2002 memo, which requested that the Military Entrance Processing Command develop a document standard to verify SSN, place
of birth, and citizenship, was the impetus for the change.)20
18. Recruiters are not allowed to recruit non-citizens in foreign countries.
Keep in mind, however, that those born in Guam, Puerto Rico, parts of
the Canal Zone, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S. citizens.
19. Appendix A contains more details on the recruiting of non-citizens.
20. The Navy recruiting manual seems also to allow those with conditional
LPR status to enlist if they have an unexpired alien registration card.
The Air Force recruiting manual states that the date of expiration on
the I-551 must not be less than 2 years from the date of issue. We are
unsure whether these provisions have changed due to the DoD source
document standards [14, 8].
27
Background investigations
Entrance National Agency Check (ENTNAC)
Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) personnel submit an
Entrance National Agency Check to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for all individuals enlisting in the Armed Forces. It is an
employment trustworthiness investigation that does not qualify applicants for security clearances. ENTNAC consists of a technical search
of the FBI criminal and investigative indices. The Defense Clearance
and Investigations Index and the Security/Suitability Investigations
also are checked.
National Agency Check/Local Agency Check/Credit Check
(NACLC)
All the services except the Army require the National Agency Check/
Local Agency Check/Credit Check for all enlistees.21 The NACLC is
the background investigation needed for a Secret or Confidential
security clearance. This checks FBI, fingerprint, local agency, and
credit files for criminal and background information.
Proof of education
Many non-citizen recruits were educated abroad. Verifying that the
foreign education is equivalent to a U.S. high school diploma can be
difficult, but it is important due to the limits on the number of nonhigh-school-diploma-graduates (non-HSDGs) allowed to enlist. Verification of educational credentials is service-specific, but all those
educated abroad must have an evaluation of their educational level
performed before enlistment, and all verification documents must be
in English.
Although recruits are primarily responsible for verifying their educational credentials, recruiters may see this time for verification as an
obstacle to enlistment.
21. The Army only runs NACLCs on those seeking a clearance that is Secret
or above.
28
English proficiency
Limitations of limited language proficiency
Limited English proficiency may impose a practical hurdle to potential non-citizen recruits. By law, all applicants need a minimum of 10
percent on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) to be eligible
for enlistment, and very few applicants are enlisted below the 30th
percentile. In addition, each of the services requires a certain level of
English proficiency.22
English proficiency of the potential recruit’s parents may limit the
recruitment of non-citizens. Language barriers can hamper parental
consent and approval (parental consent is required for 17-year-olds),
which are both important factors for several immigrant groups [15].
Although the number is increasing, there are still few recruiting publications in languages other than English for parents and influencers.
Special programs for those with limited English proficiency
Several of the services offer special enlistment programs for those
with limited English proficiency. The Army recently extended its 2year pilot program,23 the Foreign Language Recruiting Initiative
(FLRI), designed to increase the number of Hispanics in the Army.24
The Army accesses 200 recruits per year as part of the 4-year enlistment program, which uses a Spanish-language test to measure
recruits’ cognitive ability.25 Program participants must demonstrate
only enough English comprehension to understand the processing of
22. Appendix A describes English proficiency requirements in more detail.
23. The pilot was originally scheduled to run from January 2002 to January
2004.
24. This initiative is also called the Puerto Rican English Language (most of
the program’s participants are from Puerto Rico) or 09C Program. The
Army used to have another program for English as a Second Language
(ESL) enlistees (who may have spoken a native language other than
Spanish), but the program was discontinued last year.
25. Applicants must first score between 21 and 30 on the ASVAB (in
English). If they meet those criteria, they must score 18 or higher on the
Wonderlic Personnel Test in Spanish to be eligible for the program.
29
their application and the Oath of Enlistment.26 They are not assigned
a military occupational specialty (MOS) at accession.
Following accession, recruits who are not fluent in English (i.e., those
scoring between 40 and 74 on the ECLT) are enrolled in an English
language program at the Defense Language Institute's English Language Center (DLIELC) at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, for up to
7 months.27 After this training, recruits have to retake and pass the
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)—which is then
used to determine their MOS—before they are sent to basic training.28 Those who fail the ASVAB are separated.
The midterm results of the pilot program indicate that it has been
successful, with about half of the participants increasing their AFQT
scores by at least 10 points. This allows these people to enter the Army
as at least Category IIIB recruits (a requirement for entry). Initial
analysis also shows that there is not a high correlation between the
Spanish-language test and the AFQT, indicating that the AFQT alone
does not adequately capture the cognitive ability of Spanish-speaking
recruits [16].
In the Navy, there is a special Fundamental Applied Skills Training
(FAST) course at bootcamp for those who score 42 or lower on the
Verbal Expression portion of the ASVAB. Non-native English speakers
get 3 weeks of instruction in verbal skills and one week of instruction
in study skills [14, p. 4-3].29 A 1998 analysis by Hickox found that
FAST students have a significantly lower attrition rate throughout the
26. They must score at least 40 on the English Comprehension Level Test
(ECLT).
27. All DLIELC programs are total English immersion—students are
required to converse only in English (even socially) once they begin the
program. The length of the program depends on when English proficiency is achieved—program participants are given the ECLT monthly,
and must score at least a 75.
28. They must score at least a 31 on the ASVAB and a 75 or more on the
ECLT to qualify for enlistment.
29. This instruction takes place at Great Lakes, but DLIELC developed the
curriculum.
30
first term and a significantly higher reenlistment rate for a second
term than Sailors of similar abilities [17]. Another 1998 study by
Quester et al. attributed half of the bootcamp attrition reduction of
FAST participants to program participation and half to the generally
lower attrition of those with particular race/ethnic backgrounds. The
majority of FAST participants were Asian or Hispanic—groups with
very low bootcamp attrition [18].
New language initiatives
Army Translator Aide (09L) pilot program30
The Army has developed a program to attract citizen and non-citizen
native and heritage speakers of a variety of GWOT languages into the
Army through the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The program’s
goal is to produce Soldiers who can work in the Translator Aide (09L)
MOS overseas.
Enlistment requirements with regard to age, English proficiency, and
ASVAB/AFQT have been relaxed as part of the program. Those who
are not proficient in English undergo intensive English language
training for a minimum of 6 weeks up to 6 months.
Most of the program’s enlistees are non-citizens. At the end of their
training, they are offered assistance if they wish to apply for citizenship and their applications are expedited.
Marine Corps recruiting initiative for Arabic speakers
The Marine Corps has set a goal of attracting 300 Arabic speakers
annually, to be distributed across all MOSs. Unlike the Army program, no enlistment requirements will be waived for these recruits,
and they must additionally pass an Arabic language proficiency exam
at the L2/S2 level. They will not get any additional training, beyond
that which is required of any Marine.
As an incentive, the Marine Corps will offer a $12,000 enlistment
bonus to these new recruits. This bonus is payable on completion of
30. Appendix B describes this program in more detail.
31
training and being awarded an MOS. The initiative’s aim is to have
Arabic speakers available to many different commands on an ad hoc
basis. Currently, there is no plan to have these speakers acquire expedited citizenship or serve in sensitive MOSs.
Concerns
There is clearly a demand in today’s military for those who have language ability, particularly those fluent in the languages of the Middle
East. At the same time, there are a number of concerns about accessing native speakers—some of which are directly related to language
abilities. For example, many potential recruits may have learned to
speak the language from their parents and other relatives, but they
may be unable to read or write the language (or only read and write
at a basic level). Moreover, they may have learned only a dialect of the
language or their vocabularies may be limited to household conversations rather than what would be useful in the military. Furthermore,
pronunciation is often subtle. In Arabic, for example, the word meaning “appear” sounds like bada. The word meaning “start” sounds like
badaa, with a slight guttural inflection. When pronounced quickly,
these two words sound almost identical. But there is a big difference
between “He appeared to shoot” and “He started to shoot” [19].
Finally, even if recruits are fluent in the language of interest, they may
not be fluent in English. In all of these situations, more language
training probably will be required, either in the language of interest
to the military or in English.
There also are security concerns about accessing native speakers—
particularly those from countries that are considered hostile. Because
of these concerns, all initiatives are proceeding carefully.
Occupational restrictions
The services’ needs play a role in the accession of non-citizens. The
relative size and role of first-term cohorts, reenlistment standards for
non-citizens, and the proportion of MOSs, assignments, and options
that require security clearances all vary by service. For example, the
Marine Corps, which has a large first-term cohort and relatively low
reenlistment goals, may offer more opportunities to non-citizens than
the Air Force, which has a much smaller first-term cohort and cultivates more of a career force.
32
The biggest practical limitation on non-citizens in the military is the
ability to obtain a security clearance, which currently requires U.S. citizenship [20]. Many military jobs require a clearance for entry and/
or promotion.
The services have different needs in terms of billets and proportions
of their force that require clearances. The Marine Corps and the
Army have relatively fewer MOSs and a lower proportion of the force
requiring security clearances, whereas the Air Force has a relatively
higher number and proportion of billets requiring clearances. In
fact, the Air Force estimates that only 40 career fields are open to noncitizens [21].
We were able to tabulate for Navy and Army accessions both the
number of individuals in MOSs and the number of MOSs that
required clearances (see table 5). We did this at a servicemember’s
first, second, and third year of service.
Table 5. Clearance requirements for Army and Navy personnela
Variable
Number of servicemembers in 1st year of serviceb
% in MOSs requiring clearances
Number of MOSs
% of MOSs requiring clearances
Army
54,434
22.9c
220
25.5
Navy
34,739
17.2
85
42.2
Number of servicemembers in 2nd year of serviced
% in MOSs requiring clearances
Number of MOSs
% of MOSs requiring clearances
52,920
24.2
193
26.9
34,353
40.9
85
44.7
Number of servicemembers in 3rd year of servicee
% in MOSs requiring clearances
Number of MOSs
% of MOSs requiring clearances
45,458
22.3
191
26.2
34,256
46.5
84
44.0
a. For all MOSs in the 1995–2003 period for individuals in our dataset, 24.1 percent of
Army MOSs and 42.7 percent of Navy MOSs required security clearances.
b. Accessions who entered in FY03.
c. Percentage of MOSs requiring clearances out of all the MOSs that FY03 accessions
are in at the end of their first year of service.
d. Accessions who entered in FY02.
e. Accessions who entered in FY01.
33
The results for the years of service are fairly consistent, except for the
percentage of MOSs requiring clearances for Sailors in their first year
of service. This number is low (17.2 percent) because many Navy
Sailors are still seamen, airmen, or firemen, and are therefore not
occupationally qualified. Comparing the Navy and Army in the
second year of service, we see that 24.2 percent of Soldiers are in
occupations requiring clearances (26.9 percent of the occupations)
and that 40.9 percent of Sailors are in occupations requiring clearances (44.7 percent of occupations).
Even MOSs that do not require a security clearance per se may
require one for particular billets. For example, Marines in the Infantry MOS do not need security clearances, but they may need them to
be placed in a Security Guard billet.
As we discuss in a later section, the military provides special opportunities for non-citizens to become citizens. Even if a non-citizen is naturalized, however, there may be other restrictions that may prevent
him or her from entering a certain MOS. For example, Army MOS
97B (Counterintelligence Agent) requires that a Soldier’s spouse and
immediate family (including parents, parents-in-law, siblings, and
children) have U.S. citizenship. In addition, the Air Force does not
assign non-citizens to overseas bases. Non-citizens are allowed, however, to deploy on TDY rotations [22].
Reenlistment standards
The reenlistment standards for non-citizens differ among the services. The Navy and Marine Corps have no statutory restrictions on
the reenlistment of non-citizens, although the ability to obtain a security clearance may become a practical restriction beyond a certain
point. The Army allows non-citizens to serve 8 years, either consecutive or not, which coincides with the 8-year universal military service
obligation incurred by every military enlistee.31 The Air Force limits
31. Reference [7, Section 2-4] states that Army applicants and enlistees
must be advised of this restriction. If a Soldier can prove that he/she has
submitted all citizenship paperwork and is only awaiting processing,
he/she can file for an extension of up to 12 months. Similarly, reference
[23, Table 4.1, Rule 25] authorizes 6-month extensions in the Air Force
if the applicant is within 120 days of the date of separation and citizenship has not been obtained for reasons beyond the applicant's control.
34
non-citizens to one enlistment term of either 4 or 6 years and requires
them to get their citizenship to reenlist.32
Service preference
All enlistees must take the Oath of Enlistment, swearing to support
and defend the U.S. Constitution. According to [13], U.S. citizenship
is “the preferred status for enlistment to create a legally binding obligation from the servicemember based on the premise that these individuals are more capable of fulfilling their contractual military service
obligation” [13, p. 3-35]. That said, non-citizen and citizen applicants
must be treated equally. It is probably true, however, that in good
recruiting climates, recruiters may have less incentive to process noncitizens who often require additional paperwork. Recruiters may feel
that the extra hurdles that come with processing non-citizens are not
worth the effort if they have many qualified citizen recruits.
32. Reference [23] details the Air Force’s reenlistment policy. Unit commanders must inform the member of his/her ineligibility for reenlistment upon receipt of the selective reenlistment personnel roster. Noncitizens and U.S. nationals with 24 or more months of active-duty service
in a regular component of any branch of the Armed Forces cannot
enlist. The Air Force also requires that non-citizens who have served in
any other country’s armed forces get special permission to enlist [23,
pp. 24 and 26].
35
Naturalization of non-citizen servicemembers
Legal framework
Background
To reward non-citizen servicemembers for their honorable service,
U.S. law grants them expedited citizenship privileges. Sections 328
and 329 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952
pertain to the expedited citizenship of non-citizens in the Armed
Forces.33
Section 328 applies to naturalization during peacetime. It reduces the
amount of time (from 5 years to 3 years) that a non-citizen active-duty
servicemember must wait before applying for naturalization.34
Section 329 of the INA allows the President to waive wait times for
non-citizens serving in the military during times of national crisis or
emergency. Invoked during previous conflicts, this stipulation allows
non-citizens to apply for naturalization after one day of honorable
military service. 35 In July 2002, President Bush signed Executive
Order 13269, allowing non-citizens who were serving honorably in
the U.S. military to immediately apply for expedited citizenship.
More than 18,500 servicemembers have applied to become citizens
since President Bush's executive order, and nearly 9,000 have been
granted citizenship [24]. Previous executive orders allowed an estimated 100,000 non-citizens on active duty to become eligible for citizenship [25].
33. These provisions apply to all active duty and those National Guard and
Reserves that are classified as Selected Reserve or Ready Reserve.
34. Section 8 of the U.S. Code requires immigrants to be resident aliens
(LPRs) for 5 years before they can apply for U.S. citizenship.
35. Those who have completed their active-duty service honorably also can
apply for expedited citizenship if they file within 6 months of discharge.
37
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can revoke
citizenship acquired through either Section 328 or Section 329 if the
servicemember is discharged under other than honorable conditions
within 5 years of naturalization through the military process.36
Recent changes
Although President Bush’s executive order allowing non-citizens to
apply for citizenship after only one day of active-duty military service
is still in effect, the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
permanently modified Section 328 of the INA, reducing the peacetime waiting period before application for citizenship from 3 years to
1 year of honorable active-duty service. DoD 1327.5 in the NDAA also
allows applicants to be granted emergency leave and priority on government transportation if needed to complete citizenship processing.
In addition, the 2004 NDAA eliminated all application fees for noncitizens in the military37 and allowed for the finalization of citizenship
applications to be extended to U.S. consulates, embassies, and overseas U.S. military installations effective 1 October 2004.38 Previously,
service personnel were urged to delay their applications until they
were stateside, to avoid missed appointments with immigration officials or misdirected mail.39
Public Law 101-249 provides for the granting of U.S. citizenship to an
alien or non-citizen national whose death resulted from injury or disease incurred on active duty with our Armed Forces during specified
36. Although this is part of the executive order, citizenship is rarely revoked
in practice. In addition, it is unclear whether mechanisms that would be
required to track military discharges and report this information to
USCIS are in place.
37. For example, the application fee used to be $320, and the biometric
(fingerprinting) fee was $70. Source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm.
38. Finalization includes interviews, swearing-in ceremonies, and the delivery of naturalization certificates.
39. The Army now requires that Soldiers with pending citizenship applications be reminded to notify USCIS of address changes during in-, out-,
Soldier Readiness, mobilization, extended temporary duty, deployment, redeployment, and reintegration processing [26].
38
periods of military hostilities.40 Posthumous citizenship has been
granted to 48 non-citizens killed while serving in the GWOT [24].
Posthumous citizenship traditionally was an honorary status and did
not convey any benefits under the INA to any relative of the decedent.
However, new provisions in the fiscal 2004 NDAA made the citizenship
more than just honorary. Now, immediate family (to include spouses,
children, and parents) get special preference for immigration purposes [27]. Members of the immediate family of non-citizens were
usually subject to long waiting periods and annual quota restrictions
for immigration, but this special provision waives these quotas and
expedites the process. Immediate family members who do not have
LPR status may get it based on the deceased servicemember’s newly
granted citizenship. The authorization also waived the application fee
that families previously had to pay [28].
Service handling of non-citizen applications
Processing
Before 1999, the military had virtually no role in processing citizenship applications for non-citizen servicemembers. Servicemembers
would file their applications at the local Immigration and Naturalization Service office in their jurisdiction of residence. The application
then would proceed to one of three processing centers, and finally to
another center for completion of the interview process. If a servicemember received permanent change-of-station orders during this
process, his or her application would be moved to a new INS Service
Center—often resulting in delays.
To facilitate expedited processing, military applications are now
assembled within each service.41 Applications then are sent to one
processing center in Lincoln, Nebraska, where an estimated 3,000 are
40. Next of kin must file a request (with supporting documentation) within
2 years of the servicemember’s death.
41. This applies only for applications being filed under Sections 328 and
329.
39
currently awaiting processing. 42 USCIS estimates that it receives
about 800 military applications per month [29]. Interviews then are
conducted in the center closest to the servicemember’s installation.
When USCIS processes the application, it contacts the servicemember to schedule an interview and an English and civics test (at
the nearest USCIS office).43 Once all these steps are completed, the
applicant takes the Oath of Allegiance and gets his or her Certificate
of Naturalization.44
Policy
DoD coordinates non-citizen policy through OSD Personnel and
Readiness, Morale, Welfare and Recreation (OSD P&R MWR).45 This
office coordinates with USCIS Nebraska and sets overall DoD policy
for the services to follow. It also distributes USCIS’s “Guide to Naturalization” (Form M-476) to each service.
The services maintain decentralized policies for managing noncitizens in the ranks. Each service must provide a point of contact for
servicemembers to go through for expedited citizenship under Sections 328 and 329. No further direction is given to the services as to
how to best provide assistance. The Navy and Marine Corps have delegated the duty to their JAG Officers and civilian lawyers, whereas the
Air Force and Army have delegated the process to their personnel
commands.
42. According to [29], current processing time at the Lincoln USCIS facility
is 55 days, down from several months. USCIS San Antonio noted that
the Lincoln office’s staff has almost doubled in the past year.
43. Exams are in English unless the individual (1) suffers medically from a
disability or impairment that makes this infeasible, (2) is 50+ with at
least 20 years of U.S. residency, (3) is 55+ with at least 15 years of U.S.
residency, or (4) is 65+ with at least 20 years of U.S. residency.
44. Ceremonies usually are held monthly.
45. The head of Officer Enlisted Personnel Management used to manage
the citizenship program.
40
Marine Corps
The Marine Corps centrally manages the process of naturalizing noncitizens in its ranks. Each major command has a Staff Judge Advocate
and a citizenship coordinator to assist Marines with their applications,
and legal assistance can track the status of applications. The Legal
Administrative Manual (P5800.P16C Chapter 14) provides guidance.
In conjunction with Marine Corps Personnel command, the JAG Division at Headquarters Marine Corps sends e-mails each quarter to all
non-citizens notifying them of their eligibility for the expedited process.46 Alien applicants also are told of expedited citizenship eligibility
in their pre-enlistment brief [13, p. 3-30].
The Marine Corps JAG division estimates that it average 900 applications per year and that most are approved within 6 months (down from
a previous average of 2 years).
Navy
The Navy requires each command to appoint a command representative for citizenship processing, and also requires Sailors reporting to a
new command to be advised on the expedited citizenship process in
their “Welcome Aboard” packets. Recruiters also brief non-citizen
applicants on their eligibility for expedited citizenship. The Legal
Assistance Policy Branch at the Washington Navy Yard formulates basic
policy and disseminates it to all commands.
Army
The Army handles naturalization of non-citizen Soldiers through military personnel offices, or MILPOs, at each command. Army JAGs are
not typically involved with the process. Recruiters advise and counsel
non-citizen recruits on the expedited citizenship process available to
them. The Army Public Affairs office has distributed information on
expedited citizenship to Spanish-language newspapers.
Air Force
The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Customer Service Elements are
required to distribute a USCIS brochure on obtaining citizenship to all
46. In the future, Marine Corps Personnel Command will provide citizenship
information on all new recruits to the JAG division on a periodic basis.
41
non-citizens [30]. The MPF also is required to produce a quarterly
listing of all non-citizens assigned to the base and provide a briefing
on Air Force guidelines concerning citizenship. In addition to
explaining naturalization rules, the briefing spells out what noncitizens are restricted from doing in the service. The MPF also must
report information about those who have filed applications by quarter, so that processing times can be tracked.
Those interested in applying for citizenship are directed to the base
citizenship point of contact (POC), who typically is located in the
local base personnel office. Citizenship POCs, who are junior
enlisted, contractors, or civilian personnel, can assist with the process,
but are not experts in immigration law and are not required to have
extensive knowledge of the naturalization process. Servicemembers
who need more expertise are referred to the base legal office and
local USCIS experts.
As in the Army, JAGs are not typically involved in this process. The Air
Force also has a Personnel Contact Center to assist customers, military, and civilians with a wide array of programs, including the citizenship program.
Timing of application
Despite the executive order that specifies “one day of active duty,”
OSD currently advises non-citizen servicemembers to wait until they
reach their permanent duty station before filing for citizenship.47
Practically speaking, it may be difficult to track the whereabouts of
servicemembers before they reach their permanent duty stations. It
also may be difficult for servicemembers to find the time to complete
the many steps of the process, including getting their fingerprints
and photographs taken and collecting the necessary documentation.
Possible problems with applications
Several problems can slow the processing of citizenship applications
or, in some cases, cause them to be returned or denied.
47. Reference [31] also states this. In addition, OSD MWR Policy recommends that servicemembers apply no later than 60 days before a permanent change of station (PCS) move.
42
Service problems
Two issues have arisen as the services try to assist servicemembers with
their citizenship applications. One is ensuring that each installation
has personnel able to assist servicemembers with citizenship issues.
DoD, the Department of Transportation, and USCIS signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the spring of 2000. This MOU
outlined the responsibilities of each organization in the filing and
processing of servicemembers’ citizenship applications.
In the MOU, the services agreed to “identify support offices within the
Services and ensure that members have access to required forms, current instructions and assistance.” Each service also designated which
office had primary responsibility for coordinating citizenship activities. The Army designated the Adjutant General Directorate (Personnel Service Support Division), the Navy designated the Office of the
Judge Advocate General (Legal Assistance), the Air Force designated
the Directorate of Personnel Force Management (AF/DPF), and the
Marine Corps designated HQ Marine Corps, Code JAL. (The Coast
Guard also is included in the MOU, and it designated the Coast
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC-adm) as its office of primary
responsibility for coordinating citizenship activities.)
The agreement did not specify who should be designated as the citizenship point of contact at the installation level. As such, each service
(and installation) has approached this differently. This has sometimes
led to lapses in the provision of citizenship services.48
48. For example, Fort Hood, which is the largest active-duty armored post
in the military, provided citizenship services through its Army Community Service (ACS) office until 17 December 2002—when the special
duty assignment handling the function left. In February 2003, the Personnel Servicing Battalions (PSBs) took over the function but were
deployed less than 2 months later and didn’t return until April 2004.
Luckily, a retention staff sergeant developed the needed expertise to
assist servicemembers in the lapse periods. Given that there are an estimated 2,500 non-citizens at Fort Hood, such lapses were problematic.
The PSBs are now handling the function, but the Army has recently
begun to downsize PSBs (in fact, Fort Hood’s 546th PSB was deactivated
in October 2004), which could again put citizenship services at risk.
43
Because citizenship POCs can change, there also is the potential for
mistakes—resulting from inadequate training or inexperience.
44
Additional incentives to gaining citizenship
Non-citizens can reap other benefits beyond expedited citizenship
from military service. If they become citizens, they can apply for security clearances and can receive substantial bonuses for language skills.
Aside from linguist positions, having citizenship opens up a broader
array of jobs and opportunities to servicemembers.49
Special pays and bonuses for language proficiency
As the war on terrorism continues, language capability is increasingly
important to the services. At a recent conference, Dr. David Chu,
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, noted that
“since Sept. 11, 2001, our national security concerns have taken us
from the streets of Manhattan to the mountains of Afghanistan to the
resort city of Bali.” He added that the country—and specifically the
military—needs people who can relate to all those areas and more
[32].
Although the military can train recruits in needed languages, such
training is intensive and time-consuming. For example, language
teachers estimate that it takes 2 to 3 years for an English speaker with
no prior familiarity with Arabic to become fluent.
The Marine Corps, however, has recently implemented two initiatives
to increase the number of Arabic-speaking Marines. As part of one
initiative, it will reenlist 50 clearable Marines and send them to 63
weeks of Arabic language training at the Defense Language Institute
(DLI). At the end of the training, they must achieve 2/2 language
proficiency in Arabic. After PMOS school, they will be assigned to the
operating forces.
49. Information about an applicant’s skill in reading, writing, or speaking a
foreign language is collected on the DD Form 1966, but we are unsure
of its accuracy.
45
The other Marine Corps initiative will increase the 0231 (Intelligence
Specialist) structure by 100 Marines, with the intention of awarding
them a new secondary MOS of 0271 (Arabic Language/Intelligence
skills). They will receive 63 weeks of language training at DLI and 14
weeks of Intel training. At the end of their training, these Marines will
have to achieve a minimum 2/2 score in language proficiency.
These initiatives are to increase the number of speakers of languages
that are important to the military. Table 6 shows the number of speakers of a variety of important “investment languages” within the entire
DoD population.
Table 6. Current DoD language capability in investment
languagesa
Investment language
Arabic
Chinese
Farsi
(Philippine)
Hindi
Indonesian
Korean
Kurdish
Russian
Serb-Croat
Spanish
Turkish
Number of speakers
within DoD
3,686
2,157
892
5,391
197
289
3,462
2
4,125
956
4,8337
311
a. Source: Major B. J. Sanchez, “Department of Defense: Our
Language Capability,” DoD Briefing, 8 Apr 2004.
Non-citizens who speak languages of interest to the military (Arabic,
Chinese, and others)50 and obtain citizenship (thereby allowing
50. The Navy currently stresses French, Arabic, Persian-Farsi, Chinese Mandarin, Korean, Vietnamese, Serbian, Croatian, and Russian. The Army
stresses Arabic, Russian, and Portuguese.
46
them to apply for security clearances and interpreter MOSs51) could be
eligible for rather substantial Special Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs).
Each service sets its own bonus levels. For example, a Navy E-4 fluent in
Mandarin Chinese or Arabic with 4 years of service reenlisting for 4 additional years receives a $36,282 SRB [33]. In general, more difficult and
essential languages receive larger bonuses, but even fluent Spanish
speakers in approved billets can receive SRBs. A fluent Spanish speaker
in the Navy with 4 years of service reenlisting for 4 additional years
receives an SRB of $3,628.52
In addition, servicemembers in billets that require language skills may
receive Foreign Language Proficiency Pay of up to $300 per month for
as long as they maintain proficiency.
Other incentives
As previously noted, the Army and Air Force restrict non-citizen reenlistments. Obviously, if a non-citizens is not allowed to reenlist, he or she
would not be eligible for reenlistment bonuses. Less obvious, perhaps, is
that those who are not considered “retention eligible” may not be
allowed to get certain types of retraining, to participate in certain professional military education programs, or to apply for certain special
programs.
Finally, U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite for a security clearance. Those
without a clearance face more limited civilian and military job
opportunities.
Benefits of citizenship beyond the military
Obtaining U.S. citizenship carries with it tangible and intangible benefits beyond additional opportunities in the military. The right to vote
and the automatic granting of citizenship to dependent children are
51. For example, the Marine Corps’ Arabic Cryptologic Linguist enlistment
bonus requires citizenship.
52. The SRB is not paid as a lump sum in the Navy, but is spread over the reenlistment period.
47
possibly the most important, but many other opportunities and benefits also come with citizenship.
Minor, unmarried children are automatically naturalized when their
parent receives his or her citizenship. Under the Child Citizenship
Act of 2000, children (both natural and adopted) who have at least
one citizen parent, are under age 18, are LPRs, and are currently
residing in the U.S. with the parent automatically get citizenship [34].
Children over the age of 18, or legal adults, must file for citizenship
on their own.53
Naturalized citizens also are able to sponsor family members living
overseas to come to the United States and become LPRs. The process
and speed differ based on the relationship between the sponsor and
family member, specifically whether the family member can be classified as immediate family or if he or she must be considered under the
family-sponsored preference criteria.
A citizen’s immediate family—defined as a spouse, unmarried children under age 21, or parents—receive special preference for naturalization or LPR processing (whether currently inside or outside the
United States). If the family member cannot be classified as immediate family, he or she still can receive special preference for LPR status
based on family preference criteria [35].54 Unlike LPRs, citizens can
sponsor parents and siblings for entry into the United States.
U.S. citizens are able to leave the United States on travel for as long
as they like without losing their citizenship. Immigrants with LPR
status are limited to trips abroad of 2 years and require a reentry visa
if their stay lasts beyond 1 year [36]. Also, it is usually easier to reenter
the U.S. as a citizen than as an LPR.
53. This law went into effect on 27 February 2001 and is not retroactive.
54. The four family-sponsored preferences follow:
(1) First Preference: Unmarried children age 21 and over of U.S. citizens;
(2) Second Preference A & B: A. Spouses and unmarried children under
age 21 of LPRs; B. Unmarried children age 21 and over of LPRs;
(3) Third Preference: Married children age 21 and over of U.S. citizens;
(4) Fourth Preference: Brothers and sisters of adult citizens (adult = age 21
and over).
48
Once granted, U.S. citizenship never needs to be renewed. LPR status
itself does not need to be renewed, but green cards (which prove LPR
status) must be renewed every 10 years [37]. The fee to renew a green
card is $175, plus an additional $80 if the applicant has turned 14
since his or her last green card was issued [38].55 In addition, LPRs
found without their green cards face penalties, including conviction
of a misdemeanor offense, which can entail fines or imprisonment
[39].
U.S. citizenship is rarely revoked, although there have been several
high-profile cases involving former Nazis [40]. LPR status, however,
can be revoked rather easily if the person is found to have abandoned
his or her residence, had a prolonged absence, been convicted of a
crime, failed to pay income taxes, or become separated or divorced
from a sponsoring spouse [41].
Becoming a U.S. citizen allows one to hold any public office in the
United States except the Presidency. As of 2000, eight Members of
Congress were foreign-born citizens [42].
Obtaining citizenship also provides access to civilian job opportunities that require a security clearance. The executive branch of the federal government specifically forbids U.S. non-citizens from being
paid with appropriated money with few exceptions [43].
U.S. citizens also face none of the restrictions that LPRs do when seeking Social Security disability benefits or survivor benefits for their
families. Many LPRs are limited to 7 years of Social Security benefits
and must be physically present in the United States to collect these
benefits [44, 45].
55. The specific procedures for renewing an expiring green card are in the
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] at 8 CFR §264.5.
49
Statistical analyses of success
We gauge successful adaptation to military life by the completion of:
• Entry-level training (i.e., bootcamp)
• The first term of service.
We measure these milestones by the lack of attrition. There is a rich
literature on the characteristics associated with successful adaptation
to military life [46–49],56 and enlistment standards reflect these characteristics.
In this section, we model attrition probabilities in a multivariate
framework. Because the dependent variable, attrition, is binary (a
person either attrites or does not), we estimate the probability of attrition given the recruit’s characteristics. If we make appropriate
assumptions about the distribution of error terms across service members in the sample, we can estimate the attrition model using a logistic
function. In this case,
1
y t = --------------------------------------------------------- ,
1 + exp ( ( – β )′x i )
where:
yt = the probability that individual t will attrite
xi = a vector of characteristics
β = the vector of estimated coefficients.
56. Characteristics include high school graduation, high test scores,
delayed entry program (DEP) participation, and meeting the in-service
weight-for-height standards.
51
This equation is estimated using maximum likelihood techniques.
Because the function is non-linear, the derivatives depend on the
point at which they are evaluated. We evaluate them at the mean of
the data. However, since our independent variables are primarily
dummy variables (0 or 1), we estimate the marginal effect as the difference between a base case and the characteristic in question at the
mean of the data for all other variables.57 We now turn to defining
the components of the vector X, the independent variables.
Independent variables for attrition logit regressions
Educational attainment and intelligence of the recruit, participation
in the delayed entry program, accession in the summer months,
accession waivers, marital/dependency status, race/ethnic background, and non-citizen status are independent variables we explore.
The regressions also include control variables for the fiscal year of
accession.
Non-citizens
Previous work showed that non-citizen accessions in the Marine
Corps had lower attrition than citizen recruits [15]. Although we are
unaware of any previous work for the other services, we expect to find
similar results for non-citizens in the other services. The potential citizenship benefit provides an extra incentive for non-citizens both to
enter the military and to complete bootcamp and the first term of service. However, non-citizens could have more difficulty adapting to
military life, due to language or cultural difficulties.
Hispanics are the largest group of non-citizens (see table 7). In some
of our regressions, we interact the non-citizenship variable with race
and ethnicity. Unfortunately, the race/ethnic codes for accessions in
FY03 are incorrect, and DMDC is unable to fix them. Thus, we omit
FY03 accessions from most of our empirical work.
57. When there is a set of related characteristics, such as educational background, we have one base case (in our work, HSDG), and all marginal
effects are calculated relative to the base case.
52
Table 7. Non-citizen accessions, FY95-02, by race/ethnic background
Race/
ethnicity
Hispanic
API
White
Black
Other
All
services
35.1%
24.6%
11.2%
22.7%
6.4%
100.0%
Air
Force
24.6%
31.7%
14.8%
18.6%
10.3%
100.0%
Navy
31.1%
33.3%
8.4%
22.3%
4.9%
100.0%
Army
35.0%
20.5%
11.8%
27.3%
5.4%
100.0%
Marine
Corps
47.1%
14.8%
12.7%
16.5%
8.9%
100.0%
Educational background
Educational background is probably the most important predictor of
attrition (see [50] for an early study and [51] for a more recent study).
Recruits without regular high school diplomas have been found to
have higher attrition. Here, we break the educational categories into
dropouts (all Tier III), GEDs (all Tier II), adult education (part of
Tier I), one semester college (part of Tier I), high school diploma
graduates (HSDGs, bulk of Tier I), Associate degree (part of Tier I),
and BA/BS+ (rest of Tier I).
High quality: Tier I and AFQT greater than 49th percentile
Although each service recruits its own members and sets its own standards, DoD requires, at a minimum, that the educational background
of 90 percent of each service’s accessions be Tier I recruits. Tier I
recruits are primarily high school diploma graduates, but the category
also includes those with college and other professional degrees, adult
education holders, and people with one semester of college.
Similarly, DoD requires that at least 60 percent of each service’s accessions have AFQT scores that place them in the top half of this nationally normed examination (AFQT categories I–IIIA). These standards
reflect historical experience with what makes a successful recruit.
Thus, we identify high-quality recruits as those who test in the 50th
percentile and above on the AFQT and whose educational background is Tier I.
53
DEP and DEP greater than or equal to (ge) 3 months
Another important attrition discriminator is delayed entry program
(DEP) participation. Rather than shipping to bootcamp in the same
month as enlistment, recruits in the DEP have a ship date up to 12
months after their signing date. Previous research has associated 3 or
more months of DEP participation with substantially lower attrition
[15, 46].
Recruits entering the service with at least 3 months in the DEP may
have lower attrition because they:
• Avoid “quick” decisions. If recruits change their minds about joining the service, they can drop out of the DEP before going to
bootcamp. It is considerably cheaper for the services to attrite
recruits from the DEP than from active duty.
• Find a better occupational fit. Recruits are more likely to get a
school seat for a particular occupation if they do not ship
immediately.
• Become better prepared. Recruits in the DEP participate in
recruiter-organized activities. They familiarize themselves with
the service, become more physically fit, and may become more
committed to becoming a servicemember.
Summer accession
Past research for the Navy and the Marine Corps [15, 18] has shown
that higher proportions of high-quality recruits access between June
and September. It may be that summer accessions are especially motivated because so many of them are recent high school graduates.
Recruits of all quality types, however, have lower attrition if they start
bootcamp during these months, so perhaps even non-graduates “pick
up on” the motivation of recent graduates. Summer is the most popular time for recruits to enter, and 45 percent of all military accessions
in FY95 through FY03 entered in these months.
54
Accession waivers
The services grant a wide variety of enlistment waivers to recruits.
Waivers are given at both the contracting and accession point, so we
combined waiver information. We then divided waivers into the following categories: alcohol or drugs, serious legal, dependents, medical/physical, and other waivers. Previous research has shown that
recruits with waivers have slightly higher attrition rates than recruits
with no waivers.
Marital/dependency status at accession
We identify recruits who are married or have a dependent child at
accession. These recruits have more distractions than single recruits,
but they also may have more incentive to succeed.
Data for the analyses
DMDC provided us with the data for our analyses, sending us accession files, separation files, and yearly September snapshots of servicemembers. We received data for accessions in all four services for FY88
through FY03. Unfortunately, race/ethnic identifiers, critical to our
analyses, are incorrect for FY03 accessions. Thus, we did not analyze
the data for FY03.
Appendix C provides variable definitions.
Results: 3-month attrition
Because bootcamps vary in length (from 6 weeks in the Air Force to
3 months in the Marine Corps), we estimated 3-month attrition rates
for all services. We estimate these logistic regressions separately for
FY88–FY94 accessions and FY95–FY02 accessions. Separating out
recent accessions from those in an earlier period allows us to see if
behavior has changed over time. The average 3-month attrition rate
was 9.4 percent for accessions in the earlier period and 10.6 percent
for the later period.
55
Before turning to the statistical work, it is interesting to examine the
yearly average 3-month attrition rates for citizens and non-citizens
(see figure 15).
Figure 15. Three-month attrition for non-citizen and citizen recruits,
all services
Percentage
15
Non-citizen
Citizen
10
5
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
0
Fiscal year of accession
Overall 3-month attrition results
Our first set of logistic regressions combined all observations in each
subperiod, controlling for the service. These regressions, found in
table 34 in appendix D, showed that—all else equal—non-citizens
had 3-month attrition rates that were lower than those of citizens: 1.8
percentage points lower in the earlier period and 3.7 percentage
points lower in the recent period. Since non-citizen recruits are more
diverse in their race/ethnicity than citizen recruits, however, we next
estimated logistic regressions where we interacted the citizenship
variable with race/ethnic status (table 35 in appendix C has the mean
values and marginal effects for the FY88–FY94 and FY95–FY02
regressions).
In table 8, we show the estimated marginal effects by citizenship and
race/ethnic status for accessions in FY95–FY02.
56
Table 8. Three-month attrition estimates by race/ethnicity and citizenship status: FY95–FY02
accessionsa
Marginal effect by race/ethnicity
Citizen
Non-citizenb
White
Base case
-.033**
API
-.047**
-.077**
Black
-.029**
-.081**
Hispanic
-.042**
-.073**
Native
American
.034**
.009**
Other
-.033**
-.058**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level.
b. The regressions have variables for race/ethnic background and interaction variables for non-citizens of different
race/ethnic backgrounds. The omitted category is white citizens. To obtain the marginal effect for non-citizens, add
the marginal effect for the race/ethnic category to the marginal effect for the race/ethnic non-citizen interaction.
The race/ethnicity and non-citizen indicator variables are very powerful. All are statistically significant at the 1-percent level, and the effects
are large. Black, API, and Hispanic non-citizens are predicted to have
3-month attrition rates that are 7 to 8 percentage points below those
for white citizens (the base case). All else equal, white and other noncitizens are predicted to have 3-month attrition rates of 3.3 and 5.8 percentage points below those of white citizens. Only Native American
non-citizens have higher attrition rates than the base case; these
recruits compose a very small group of Canadian Native Americans
with generally higher attrition. In short, when the race/ethnic backgrounds of non-citizens are included in the non-citizen definitions, the
marginal effect on attrition from non-citizen status increases. The
majority of non-citizens are Hispanic or API; all else equal, these two
categories of non-citizens have 3-month attrition rates that are less
than half the rate for white citizens.
Table 9 shows the marginal effects for the other independent variables
in the regression. Turning first to the educational background variables, we see that GEDs (Tier II) and dropouts (Tier III) have attrition
rates that are 2.4 or 3.9 percentage points above those of HSDGs. Consistent with earlier work for Sailors and Marines, we find that recruits
with adult education or 1-semester-college educational backgrounds
(Tier I) have 3-month attrition rates that are similar to those for Tier
II and III recruits, as their attrition rates also are about 3 percentage
points above those of HSDGs. Recruits with Associate degrees and
those with BA or BS degrees have 3-month attrition rates that are 1.5
and 2.6 percentage points below those of HSDGs.
57
Table 9. Three-month attrition estimates by education,
accession waiver, service, and other variablesa
Variable
Marginal effect
Education
Dropout
GED
Adult education
1 semester college
HSDG
Associate degree
BA/BS+
.039**
.024**
.029**
.033**
Base case
-.015**
-.026**
Accession waiver
No waiver
Alcohol or drugs
Serious legal
Dependents
Medical or physical
Other
Base case
.008**
.006**
.012**
.018**
.009**
Service
Army
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
Base case
-.014**
.020**
.013**
Other
Tier I & AFQT > 49
DEP 1-2 months
DEP ge 3 months
Female
Married or dependents
Jun-Sep accession
-.028**
.007**
-.024**
.051**
.021**
-.016**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level;
* indicates z statistic significant at 5-percent level.
Full estimates are found in appendix D.
Turning to accession waivers, we find small positive effects on attrition
probabilities for waivered recruits. The largest effects are for medical or
physical waivers (1.8 percentage points).
58
Controlling for the service, Air Force recruits have lower, and Navy and
Marine Corps recruits higher, 3-month attrition rates than do Army
recruits (the base case).
The bottom panel of table 9 reports the marginal effects for other variables of interest. Again, these results hold all other characteristics constant and examine only the effect of changing the characteristic of
interest. High-quality recruits have 3-month attrition rates that are 2.8
percentage points lower than other recruits. DEP participation of 1 or
2 months lowers attrition by 0.7 percentage point, but DEP participation of 3 or more months lowers attrition by 2.4 percentage points.
Female recruits have attrition rates that are 5.1 percentage points
higher than male recruits. Recruits who have dependents at accession
have 3-month attrition rates that are 2.1 percentage points higher than
recruits without dependents. Finally, recruits accessing in the summer
have—all else equal—3-month attrition rates that are 1.6 percentage
points lower than recruits accessing at other times of the year.58
Three-month attrition results by service
Appendix D provides mean values and marginal effects from logistic
regressions for 3-month attrition that were done separately by service
for FY95–FY02 accessions. The marginal effects on 3-month attrition by
non-citizen and race/ethnic status were similar across the services.59 As
in the regression for all the services discussed above, the marginal
effects for these variables are very large and statistically significant (see
table 10).
Next, we explored other differences that we found across the services.
Table 11 shows the marginal effects on 3-month attrition for a set of
characteristics for accessions who entered in the FY95–FY02 period.
Females made up 26 percent of Air Force accessions, 18 percent of
Navy accessions, 20 percent of Army accessions, and 7 percent of
58. Some of these results differ substantially by service. We discuss results by
service in the next section.
59. The effects were a little smaller in the Air Force and a little larger in the
Navy, but 3-month attrition is lowest in the Air Force and highest in the
Navy.
59
Marine Corps accessions. In all services, female attrition was higher
than male attrition, but the effects were much smaller in the Navy and
the Air Force than in the Army or Marine Corps. Other things equal,
female 3-month attrition in the Army was almost 9 percentage points
higher than male attrition. In the Marine Corps, female 3-month
attrition was 5 percentage points higher than male attrition whereas,
in the Air Force and Navy, the attrition differences were smaller.
Table 10. Marginal effects on 3-month attrition for non-citizen recruits,
by service and race/ethnic background:
accessions in FY95–FY02a
Hispanic non-citizen
White non-citizen
Black non-citizen
API non-citizen
Other non-citizen
Air
Force
-.053**
-.033**
-.051**
Not sig.
-.064**
Navy
-.076**
-.034**
-.085**
-.095**
-.064**
Army
-.076**
-.034**
-.085**
-.075**
-.064**
Marine
Corps
-.073**
-.028**
-.067**
-.060**
Not sig.
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level;
* indicates z statistic significant at 5-percent level.
Full estimates are found in appendix D.
Table 11. Three-month attrition estimates for FY95–FY02
accessions: differences by servicea
Marginal effects by service
Air Force
Female
.026**
DEP 1-2 months
-.005*
DEP 3 or more months
-.020*
Married or dependents Not sig.
June-Sept accession
-.004**
Navy
.015*
-.007**
-.031**
.026**
-.025**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level.
* indicates z statistic significant at 5-percent level.
Full estimates are found in appendix D.
60
Army
.088**
Not sig.
.009**
.022**
-.018**
Marine
Corps
.053**
-.005**
-.028**
.037**
-.018**
Direct ships generally have lower attrition than those who sign their
contracts and enter the DEP to ship in a later month. In fact, most
recruits ship from the DEP (from a high of 93 percent in the Air Force
to a low of 85 percent in the Army). All else equal, DEP participation
of 3 or more months reduces attrition, but the impact is smaller in the
Army and Air Force than in the Navy or Marine Corps (where such
participation reduces attrition by about 3 percentage points).
The percentage of recruits who were married or had dependents at
accession was about 14 percent in the Army, 9 percent in the Navy and
Air Force, and 6 percent in the Marine Corps. Although Air Force
recruits who were married or had other dependents did not have attrition rates significantly different from their single counterparts, other
services’ recruits who were married or had other dependents had
attrition rates that were 2 to 4 percentage points higher at the 3month point.
Particularly in the Navy, Army, and Marine Corps, summer accessions—holding everything else, including quality, constant—have 3month attrition rates that are about 2 percentage points lower than
those for recruits who enter in other months.
We now examine the impact of specific educational backgrounds on
attrition (table 12). All effects are relative to HSDGs. It is important to
remember that most recruits are HSDGs (95 percent in the Air Force,
85 percent in the Navy, 81 percent in the Army, and 89 percent in the
Marine Corps).60 In the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, a general pattern emerges of dropouts, GEDs, adult education, and 1-semester-college recruits having higher attrition than HSDGs, Associate degree,
and Bachelor’s degree holders. Note that both adult education and 1semester-college recruits, who are formally classified as Tier I recruits,
have generally worse attrition than dropouts (Tier III) and GEDs
(Tier II).
In the Air Force, attrition varies little by educational background with
one exception: recruits with adult education backgrounds (about 0.1
60. While Tier I recruits are primarily HSDGs, adult education, one semester college, Associate degrees, and BA/BS+ also are Tier I recruits.
61
percent of Air Force accessions) have predicted 3-month attrition
rates 7.8 percentage points above those of HSDGs.
Table 12. Marginal effects for 3-month attrition: education
and ability background differences by servicea
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and AFQT>49
Marginal effects by service
Air
Marine
Force
Navy
Army
Corps
Not sig.
.029** Not sig. .065**
-.014**
.024** .025** .040**
.078**
.033** .020** .026**
Not sig.
.042** .028** .050**
Not sig. -.021** -.018** Not sig.
-.009** -.033** -.036** -.031**
-.026** -.039** -.023** -.026**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level.
Full estimates are found in appendix D.
The accession waiver variables generally were less statistically significant and smaller in their effects than other independent variables in
the 3-month logistic regressions by service. For Air Force recruits, only
dependent and medical/physical waivers attained statistical significance and increased attrition by less than 2 percentage points, respectively. For the other services, waiver variables were statistically
significant in general, but the attrition increase also was less than 2
percentage points.
Results: 36-month attrition
We use 36-month attrition for our “first-term” attrition measure
because it means that we exclude only 2-year contracts (about 3 percent of Army and 0.3 percent of Navy accessions). Thus, we estimated
36-month attrition for the over 1 million recruits who entered from
FY95 through FY00. In this period, there were over 46,000 non-citizen
recruits. Before turning to the statistical work, we report 36-month
attrition rates for citizens and non-citizens: 32.2 and 18.7 percent,
respectively.
62
36-month attrition results for logistic regressions
The statistically significant and large reductions in attrition for noncitizens that we observed in the 3-month attrition analyses are only
magnified when we examine 36-month attrition. As in the 3-month
attrition regressions, we control for citizenship status, race/ethnic
background, DEP participation, educational background, quality,
accession waivers, presence of dependents at accession, summer entry,
Service, and accession fiscal year. After controlling for these independent variables in a logistic regression for all accessions, we find that the
marginal effect of non-citizen status is a reduction in predicted attrition
of 10 percentage points.
Such a regression, however, hides the fact that the race/ethnic backgrounds of non-citizens more heavily favor groups with generally lower
attrition. Thus, in the regressions we report in table 37 of appendix E,
we interact citizenship status with race/ethnic background. Table 13
shows the marginal effects of citizenship status for different race/
ethnic backgrounds. Other things equal, non-citizens have 36-month
attrition rates that are 9 to 20 percentage points lower than white citizens (the base case). Again, most non-citizens are Hispanic or API;
these non-citizen recruits have 36-month attrition rates 16.5 and 20.0
percentage points, respectively, below the base case of white citizens.
Table 13. 36-month attrition estimates by race/ethnicity and citizenshipa
Citizenship
status
Citizen
Non-citizenb
White
Base case
-.087**
Marginal effect by race/ethnicity
API
Black
Hispanic
-.106**
-.032**
-.085**
-.200**
-.172**
-.167**
Other
-.060**
-.143**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level.
b. The regression has variables for race/ethnic background as well as interaction variables
for non-citizens of different race/ethnic backgrounds. The omitted category is white citizens. To obtain the marginal effect for non-citizens, add the marginal effect for the
race/ethnic category to the marginal effect for the race/ethnic non-citizen interaction.
See table appendix E for full logistic regression results.
We now turn to marginal effects for the other independent variables
and compare them to the marginal effects for 3-month attrition (see
table 14). The first part of the table looks at effects by education—all
63
the effects for 36-month attrition are statistically significant and about
3 times larger than for 3-month attrition. Educational background
matters throughout the first term of service—both during and after
bootcamp. GEDs and 1-semester-college accessions, for example,
have 36-month attrition rates that are 9.5 and 7.8 percentage points
higher than those for HSDGs.
Table 14. Attrition estimates by education, accession waiver, service,
and other variablesa
Variable
Dropout
GED
Adult education
1 semester college
HSDG
Associate degree
BA/BS+
No waiver
Alcohol or drugs
Serious legal
Dependents
Medical or physical
Other
Army
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
Tier I & AFQT > 49
DEP 1-2 months
DEP ge 3 months
Female
Married or dependents
Jun-Sep accession
Marginal effect
3-month attrition 36-month attrition
Education
.039**
.127**
.024**
.097**
.029**
.099**
.033**
.105**
Base case
Base case
-.015**
-.047**
-.026**
-.078**
Accession waiver
Base case
Base case
.008**
.047**
.006**
.053**
.012**
.027**
.018**
.019**
.009**
.033**
Service
Base case
Base case
-.014**
-.074**
.020**
-.008**
.013**
-.055**
Other
-.028**
-.049**
.007**
-.032**
-.024**
-.082**
.051**
.105**
.021**
.018**
-.016**
-.018**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level;
* indicates z statistic significant at 5-percent level.
Full estimates are found in appendix E.
64
Accession waivers are much more important predictors of attrition in
the post-bootcamp period. Recruits with accession waivers are predicted to have attrition rates that are 1.7 to 5.3 percentage points
higher than recruits without waivers.
Turning to the service variables, the differences between the 3-month
and the 36-month marginal effects are most interesting. Although the
Marine Corps and Navy had 3-month attrition rates that were about 2
percentage points higher than the Army’s (the base case), 36-month
attrition rates show a different pattern. At 36 months, Navy attrition
is only 0.5 percentage point above the Army’s, whereas the Marine
Corps rate is 3.2 percentage points below the Army’s. Clearly, the
Marine Corps takes proportionally more of its attrition in the first 3
months of service than do the other services.
The final panel of table 14 looks at the marginal effects for a variety
of other background characteristics. Whereas high quality and DEP
participation for at least 3 months widen the attrition differences over
the entire first term of service, the same is not true for summer accessions or for those married or with dependents at accession. For these
last two characteristics, the attrition differences we observe in the first
3 months of service are roughly the same as those observed over the
entire first term of service. Accessing married or with dependents
raises attrition about 2 percentage points, and accessing in the
summer lowers attrition by about 2 percentage points.
36-month attrition results by service
Table 15 shows average 36-month attrition rates by service, as well as
the marginal effects of non-citizen status by race/ethnicity. In all the
services, these results are extremely large and statistically significant
at the 1-percent level. Clearly, most non-citizens have successfully
adapted to military life.
Table 16 looks at differences in behavior across the services. Recruits
with dropout, GED, adult education, or 1-semester-college educational backgrounds generally have 36-month attrition rates about 10
percent higher than HSDGs, although there are a few exceptions by
service. In all services except the Marine Corps, recruits with either an
Associate or Bachelor’s degree have lower 36-month attrition than
HSDGs, but the magnitude of these results vary by service.
65
Table 15. Marginal effects on 36-month attrition for non-citizen recruits:
by service and race/ethnic backgrounda
Hispanic non-citizen
White non-citizen
Black non-citizen
API non-citizen
Other non-citizen
Average 36-month
attrition rate
Air
Force
-.124**
-.066**
-.079**
-.151**
-.153**
Navy
-.165**
-.101**
-.194**
-.205**
-.143**
Army
-.190**
-.105**
-.202**
-.194**
-.167**
Marine
Corps
-.147**
-.064**
-.139**
-.138**
-.106**
.256
.344
.342
.286
a. These marginal effects are in relation to the omitted category, white citizens.
** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level;
* indicates z statistic significant at5-percent level. See appendix E.
Table 16. 36-month attrition estimates: differences by servicea
Marginal effects by service
Air
Marine
Force
Navy
Army
Corps
Educational background & ability
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and AFQT>49
Other variables
Female
DEP 1-2 months
DEP 3 or more months
Married or dependents
June-Sept accession
Not sig.
-.017*
.146**
Not sig.
-.036**
-.110**
-.053**
.111**
.093**
.107**
.124**
-.067**
-.082**
-.069**
-.065**
.112**
.090**
.105**
-.048**
-.090**
-.034**
.158**
.110**
.078**
.091**
Not sig.
Not sig.
-.059**
.054**
-.035**
-.080**
-.037**
Not sig.
.034**
-.030**
-.097**
.030**
-.022**
.186**
-.023**
-.059**
.026**
-.023**
.105**
-.021**
-.074**
.042**
-.026**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level.
* indicates z statistic significant at 5-percent level.
For complete regression see appendix E.
66
Holding all else constant, female recruits have higher 36-month attrition rates than male recruits in all the services, but the differences
vary substantially—from 3.4 percentage points in the Navy to 18.6
percentage points in the Army. DEP participation lowers attrition in
every service, but the effects are strongest for those with 3 or more
months in the DEP. Recruits who entered married or with dependents have lower 36-month attrition in the Air Force, but higher 36month attrition in the other services. All results are statistically significant. Finally, summer accessions in all services except the Air Force
have 36-month attrition that is 2 to 3 percentage points lower than
accessions who enter in other months.
67
Who acquires citizenship while in the military?
In recent years, there have been significant administrative and legislative changes to the citizenship process for non-citizens serving in
the U.S. military. The goal of these changes has been to expedite the
citizenship application process. President Bush’s 2002 executive
order dramatically shortened—from 3 years to immediately upon
entering the service—the time a non-citizen serving honorably in the
U.S. military has to wait before applying for U.S. citizenship. In addition, the centralization of application processing and the elimination
of application fees reduced the burdens of applying for citizenship.
The expedited citizenship process offered to U.S. military personnel
is an attractive enlistment incentive for non-U.S. citizens. Encouraging non-citizen servicemembers to become citizens also can increase
the pool of personnel eligible for MOSs with clearance requirements.
In this section, we provide information on the number and share of
non-citizen accessions who become U.S. citizens while in the military
services. Then, we examine the characteristics of those who are likely
to become citizens while serving, using the term “new citizen” to
describe non-citizens accessed in the FY95–FY03 period whose military personnel records recorded them as U.S. citizens by September
2003. Our new citizen measure undercounts those who became citizens for two reasons:
1. We are unable to observe non-citizen attrites who later became
citizens.
2. We miss any non-citizen accessions whose U.S. citizenship was
recorded in personnel records after September 2003.
Finally, we proxy the length of the U.S. citizenship process for noncitizen accessions.
69
To fully determine the effect of President Bush’s 2002 executive order
on the probability of non-citizen servicemembers attaining citizenship and on the length of time to citizenship, we would need information on the citizenship status of all military personnel and dates for
citizenship attainment. Unfortunately, our data are restricted to military accessions, and our citizenship attainment variable is simply
whether U.S. citizenship is recorded on a September personnel file.
Figure 16 shows the number of non-citizen accessions in the FY95
through FY03 period whose U.S. citizenship was recorded in military
personnel files by September 2003. From FY95 through FY03, the
number of new citizens increased; however, there is no sharp increase
in new citizens following the 2002 executive order. To evaluate the
impact of the 2002 executive order, different data and another study
would be required.
Figure 16. Numbers of new citizens by fiscal year of citizenship
reportinga
3500
New citizens
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fiscal year
Army
Air Force
Marine Corps
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC non-citizen accession data.
70
Navy
Data
The data we requested from DMDC included accession files, separation files, and yearly September snapshots for 1995 through 2003.61
Citizenship status is a field in the September snapshots, but there is
no associated date of citizenship. We determine whether a noncitizen accession has become a citizen by the first September he or
she appears as a citizen in our files. Needless to say, this is a noisy measure of when an accession actually becomes a citizen.
We calculate time-to-citizenship as the number of months from accession to the first September an accession is listed as a citizen in our
data files. For example, a non-citizen recruit who receives citizenship
in October of 1997 will be considered a U.S. citizen as of September
1998—11 months after the fact. In addition, since we have no independent information on citizenship status, we are unable to judge
whether citizenship information is entered into personnel files in a
timely manner. Thus, our measures are only rough estimates of
acquiring citizenship and the time it takes for non-citizen military
personnel to acquire citizenship.
Figure 16 makes it apparent that citizenship status for Army accessions was not updated until FY00.62 Although it is unknown whether
all the FY95–FY99 non-citizen Army accessions records were correctly
updated, we certainly can observe that many records were updated.
Unfortunately, non-citizen Army accessions who left before FY00 (but
who became citizens before FY00) still will be listed as non-citizens in
our data.63 We show the Army information in our descriptive statistics
but, as a precaution, exclude Army accessions from the regressions
for obtaining citizenship and months-to-citizenship.
61. We do not include FY04 accessions since the race and ethnic data fields
are not consistent with the earlier years of data.
62. Before FY00, only 3 Army recruits who accessed between FY95 and FY03
are listed as becoming U.S. citizens. In the September 2000 personnel
snapshot, over 3,000 Army non-citizens had their non-citizen status
updated to U.S. citizenship.
63. Fortunately non-citizens have lower-than-average attrition, so this is not
as big a problem as it might be.
71
The increase in citizenship among servicemembers accessing in the
mid- to late-1990s corresponds with reductions in the administrative
barriers to citizenship. Figure 17 shows the percentage of non-citizen
accessions who became U.S. citizens while in the military. Between
FY95 and FY03, the FY95–FY98 accession cohorts have the largest percentages of accessions who became U.S. citizens in the military. The
largest cohort of non-citizen accessions who became U.S. citizens
while in the military was FY98 (2,300 new citizens).64
Percent of non-citizen
accessions who became U.S.
citizens
Figure 17. Percentage of non-citizen accessions that became
U.S. citizens by September 2003a
30%
28%
27%
27%
28%
23%
25%
22%
22%
20%
16%
16%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal year of accession
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data.
Most non-citizen accessions do not become citizens immediately
upon entering the services, particularly since there was a 3-year waiting period before June 2002 (assuming they had not previously met
the 3-year residency requirements). Thus, the peak in citizenship
among pre-1999 non-citizen accessions may be from those accessions
64. As of September 2003.
72
becoming eligible for citizenship around the time that reductions in
citizenship processing time occurred. Secondary potential causes for
the high number of new citizens in the mid-1990s include better job
opportunities for U.S. citizens relative to non-citizens or the recession
of the early 2000s making citizenship more attractive.
For accessions after FY98, the number and share of non-citizens who
became U.S. citizens while in the military dropped. This is not surprising, given that the citizenship process is lengthy and more recent
accessions have had less time to become citizens and have their citizenship recorded. Most non-citizen accessions attaining citizenship
while in the service are Army Soldiers (see figure 18). The number of
non-citizen Army accessions becoming U.S. citizens has ranged from
436 for FY95 accessions to 826 for FY98 accessions.
Number of non-citizen
accessions who became
citizens
Figure 18. Number of new citizens, by service and fiscal year of
accessiona
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal year of accession
Army
Air Force
Marine Corps
Navy
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC non-citizen accession data.
The Army is the only one of the services in which the number of noncitizen accessions who became U.S. citizens has increased with recent
73
cohorts. For example, 765 Soldiers accessed as non-citizens in FY03
were recorded as becoming citizens by the end of the year, compared
with only 544 of the almost 5,000 FY03 non-citizen accessions in the
other services.65 The Army, the largest service, is followed in total
number of new citizens by the Marine Corps, the smallest service. As
previously shown, the Air Force has the smallest number of noncitizen accessions but the highest proportion over most of the period
of non-citizen accessions who became citizens while serving. (See
figure 19.) Given the importance of clearances for Air Force personnel, this result probably is not surprising.
Percent of non-citizen
accessions who became
citizens
Figure 19. Percentage of non-citizen accessions that became citizens by
September 2003a
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal year of accession
Army
Air Force
Marine Corps
Navy
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC accession data.
65. In fact, 74 percent of the Army’s FY03 new citizens came from FY03
Army accessions. Either the Army has greatly increased the processing
of non-citizen recruits’ citizenship applications or there is some other
explanation for this fact.
74
Characteristics of enlisted personnel who became citizens
Table 17 shows that there are slight differences in the demographic
characteristics of non-citizen accessions who stay non-citizens and
those who become citizens while in the military. For example, 7.9 percent of non-citizens who became citizens while in the military
accessed with some college education, compared with 7.5 percent
who did not become citizens. Fifty-four percent of new citizens are
high quality (Tier I with an AFQT score in the 50th percentile and
above), compared with 48 percent of non-citizen accessions whom we
do not observe becoming citizens. Overall, a higher proportion of
new citizens than non-citizens are female (19.5 percent compared
with 18 percent).
Table 17. Percentage of non-citizen accessions in each subgroupa
Variable
Dropout
Adult education
GED
HSDG
One semester of college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
White
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native
Other
Army
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
Percentage
Became U.S.
Stayed noncitizen while in
citizenb
the service
Education
.008
.003
.018
.013
.029
.024
.870
.881
.029
.026
.013
.015
.033
.038
c
Race/ethnicity
.109
.122
.241
.254
.228
.228
.362
.316
.003
.003
.057
.077
Service
.393
.332
.074
.190
.350
.216
.183
.262
75
Table 17. Percentage of non-citizen accessions in each subgroupa
(continued)
Variable
Tier I & AFQT > 49
Female
Married or dependents
Percentage
Became U.S.
Stayed noncitizen while in
citizenb
the service
Other
.476
.538
.180
.195
.126
.133
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC data for FY95–FY03 accessions. We include noncitizen accessions in all four services.
b. The “stayed non-citizen” category includes non-citizen accessions who either
left the military before becoming U.S. citizens or were not reported as U.S. citizens by September 2003.
c. CNA tabulations of DMDC data for FY95-FY02 accessions. We include noncitizen accessions in all four services.
The race/ethnic characteristics of non-citizen accessions who do and
do not become U.S. citizens are similar. The only difference, true for
all accessions examined, is that a slightly lower proportion of new citizens are Hispanic. This does not seem to be based on birth country.
The top ten foreign birth countries for non-citizens who do and do
not become U.S. citizens are the same, and the order of these countries is very similar. For both groups, the Philippines is the top birth
country, followed by Mexico, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic.
Likelihood of becoming a citizen while in the military
Using a logit model, we estimate the probability of becoming a U.S.
citizen controlling for a number of observable characteristics.66 We
examine the decision to become a citizen while in the service since we
are unable to observe when or if citizenship is acquired after leaving
the military. The probability of a non-citizen accession becoming a
U.S. citizen increases the longer he or she stays in the service. Thus,
66. We exclude Army non-citizen accessions from our analysis since we are
unsure of the quality of the citizenship data in the Army records. In our
models, we control for fiscal year of accession, service, race/ethnicity,
gender, education, dependent status, age at accession, and high quality.
76
we might expect servicemembers who typically are more likely to
attrite to be less likely to become U.S. citizens while in the service;
however, we do not find this to be universally true.
Table 18 reports the calculated marginal effects for covariates of
interest. To get the marginal effects, we first estimate the predicted
probability of becoming a U.S. citizen for a base case, or group with a
certain set of characteristics. The marginal effects represent the
change in the probability of becoming a U.S. citizen while in the military for a group of non-citizens compared with the base case. For
example, the predicted probability that a non-citizen accession without dependents—our base case—becomes a citizen while in the military is 25.8 percent. The predicted probability of a non-citizen
accession with dependents becoming a citizen is 30.3 percent. In this
case, the marginal effect of having dependents on the likelihood of
becoming a citizen is .045, or 4.5 percentage points.
Table 18. Marginal effects for the probability of
becoming a U.S. citizen
Marginal effecta
Variable
Education
Dropout
GED
Adult education
HSDG
1 semester college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
-.037
.004
-.037*
Base case
.019
.080**
.091**
Race/ethnicity
White
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native
Other
Base case
.006
-.011
-.035**
.041
.022*
Age
18 years of age
19 years of age
20 to 24 years of age
25 and older
Base case
.011
.007
.013
77
Table 18. Marginal effects for the probability of
becoming a U.S. citizen (continued)
Marginal effecta
Variable
Service
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
.137**
-.167**
Base case
Other
Tier I & AFQT > 49
Female
Married or dependents
.014**
.022**
.045**
a. ** indicates z statistic significant at 1-percent level;
* indicates z statistic significant at 5-percent level.
Our sample includes Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
non-citizen accessions. Army non-citizen accessions
were excluded. Full estimates are in appendix F.
Our estimates are consistent with the raw averages reported earlier.
Controlling for age, race, and so on, female non-citizen accessions
are 2.2 percentage points more likely than their male counterparts to
become citizens while in the service. As previously noted, non-citizen
accessions with dependents are more likely to become citizens while
in the military. These results are surprising, given that accessions who
are female or have dependents are more likely to attrite than males
or accessions without dependents.
Educational background also seems to play a role in the attainment
of citizenship. Non-citizens accessing with either an Associate or
Bachelor’s degree are over 9 percentage points more likely to
become citizens while in the military than non-citizen accessions with
only a high school degree. Non-citizen accessions with adult education are 4 percentage points less likely than high school degree holders to be observed becoming U.S. citizens.
Holding all else constant, Air Force non-citizen accessions are most
likely to become U.S. citizens, followed by non-citizen accessions in
the Marine Corps and the Navy. We estimate that non-citizen recruits
entering the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps have a 47-, 16-, or 33percent chance, respectively, of becoming U.S. citizens while in the
military. Our logit estimates from the individual services are
78
consistent with those from our full sample; however, our service-specific findings are not as statistically robust.
Proxy of time-to-citizenship while in the military
In this section, we estimate a proxy for how long it takes a non-citizen
accession to become a U.S. citizen. As previously noted, all but three
of the Army’s FY95–FY98 non-citizen accessions who became citizens
are listed as achieving citizenship in FY00. This is reflected in our estimated time-to-citizenship (see figure 20).
Estimated months to
citizenship
Figure 20. Rough estimate of time-to-citizenshipa
3 year wait period Citizenship wait
to apply for
period shortened for
citizenship
some
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
No wait
to apply
2002
2003
Fiscal year of accession
Army
Air Force
Marine Corps
Navy
a. CNA tabulations of DMDC FY95 to FY03 accession data. For non-citizen recruits
between 1998 and 2002, the executive order may have reduced their actual waiting
period for citizenship by up to 3 years.
We also observe a decline in the time-to-citizenship for non-citizen
accessions in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, but it was not as
dramatic. Recent decreases in time-to-citizenship could be the result
of one or both of the following:
79
• The fact that recent recruits have less time to become citizens
and only non-citizen accessions who became citizens very
quickly will be included in the data.
• Improvements in the services’ citizenship application process.
Figure 20 shows which accessions were influenced by President
Bush’s 2002 executive order that eliminated the waiting period for
servicemembers to apply for citizenship. Accessions before 1998 were
not affected by the executive order and had to be legalized aliens for
at least 3 years before applying for citizenship, whereas non-citizens
accessing less than 3 years before the executive order may have had
their waiting periods shortened. Eligible non-citizen accessions after
June 2002 no longer have to wait to apply for U.S. citizenship. Without additional years of data, we are unable to disentangle whether the
decrease in time-to-citizenship is due to sample selection or a reduction in administrative and legislative barriers to citizenship.
Table 19 shows our multivariate regression estimates of the time-tocitizenship for Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy new citizens.67 All
else equal, we find that time-to-citizenship differs by race/ethnicity,
service, recruit quality, and dependent status at accession.68 Compared with white new citizens, Hispanic non-citizen accessions take
almost 3 months longer to become U.S. citizens. Blacks and Asian/
Pacific Islanders also take longer than whites to become U.S. citizens.
The time-to-citizenship is 12.1 months shorter for new citizens in the
Marine Corps than for new citizens in the Air Force. Finally, noncitizen accessions with dependents who became citizens by September 2003 did so almost 3 months earlier than their counterparts without dependents at accession.
67. Our time-to-citizenship regressions control for fiscal year of accession,
Service, race/ethnicity, gender, education, marital status, age at accession, and high quality.
68. Thus, whereas older non-citizen recruits are more likely to become citizens, the citizenship process takes longer for them. This is an interesting
and non-intuitive result.
80
Table 19. Estimated months until citizenshipa
Variable
Coefficient
Race/ethnicity
White
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native
Other
Age at Accession
18 years of age
19 years of age
20 to 24 years of age
25 and older
Service
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
Other
Tier I & AFQT > 49
Female
Married or dependents
Base case
3.61**
5.44**
2.76**
-5.87
2.06*
Base case
.921
1.71
.113
12.14**
13.03**
Base case
-1.63**
.557
2.90**
a. ** indicates t statistic significant at 1-percent level;
* indicates t statistic significant at 5-percent level.
Our sample includes Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
non-citizen accessions. Army non-citizen accessions
were excluded.
Full estimates are in appendix G.
The average length of the process for becoming citizens for those
who attained citizenship while in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and
Navy is 33, 31, and 20 months, respectively. We also estimated separate time-to-citizenship models for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and
Navy.69 Some of our service-specific findings follow:
69. Our service-specific time-to-citizenship regressions control for fiscal
year of accession, race/ethnicity, gender, education, marital status, age
at accession, and high quality.
81
• Within the Air Force, white non-citizen accessions become citizens more quickly than other non-citizen accessions.
• Female Marines take 3.3 months longer than male Marines to
become U.S. citizens.
• Within the Navy, high-quality non-citizen accessions become
citizens almost 4 months earlier than other accessions.
• Within both the Navy and Marine Corps, non-citizen accessions
with dependents became citizens 4 and 3 months earlier,
respectively, than other accessions.
82
Recommendations
Getting information out about the success of non-citizens in all of the
military services is important. When we began this study, we found virtually no literature on the performance of non-citizens in the military.
Yet, we find that non-citizens perform remarkably well and have lower
3- and 36-month attrition rates than citizens. Thus, not only do noncitizens bring linguistic and cultural diversity to the services, they also
bring a track record of superior performance. OSD–Accession Policy
should publicize these results, which could serve as a recruitment
incentive.
As the services (particularly the Army and Marine Corps) make efforts
to increase the number of Arabic-language speakers, it will be important to document which recruiting, training, and compensation strategies work and which do not. A more linguistically and culturally
diverse force is likely to be required even after the current conflict
ends, and it will be important to know what strategies are most and
least effective in sustaining required diversity.
The services and USCIS have made strides in simplifying and facilitating the process of applying for citizenship while serving in the military. That said, there are things that OSD–Accession Policy could do
to further improve the process. These would not only benefit servicemembers but would supply the services with a more capable and flexible force.70
Collecting the documentation/information needed to apply for citizenship can be a daunting task. Often, documents must be sent from
abroad or the servicemember must consult with family members to
retrieve background information. Consequently, we believe that
70. Because non-citizen servicemembers are restricted from some occupations and assignments, the services cannot use them as flexibly as citizen
servicemembers.
83
OSD–Accession Policy could provide military recruiters with information on what documents/information non-citizen recruits will need if
they want to apply for citizenship while serving in the military. This
would allow recruits to assemble these materials while still at home in
the DEP.
OSD–Accession Policy also could work with USCIS’s Office of Citizenship to develop materials for applicants or new recruits that explain:
• Eligibility for expedited citizenship
• Benefits of filing for citizenship while in the military
• Benefits of attaining citizenship.
This information would be useful to those considering military service and could provide initial points of contact for those interested in
obtaining more information.71
OSD–Accession Policy also might want to investigate reasons for differences in service policies regarding non-citizens. An all-service conference to discuss these policies (and compare their advantages and
disadvantages) might prove useful.
We make several recommendations that may be beyond the purview
of OSD–Accession Policy. We feel that they are important to raise,
however, because they are likely to affect non-citizens’ performance
and satisfaction, as well as their ability to attain citizenship while in
the military.
First, we believe that the services should commit to more structured
installation-based assistance to help non-citizen servicemembers with
their citizenship applications. If citizenship assistance services are
unavailable or personnel are not adequately trained, the non-citizen
servicemembers suffer. USCIS San Antonio has developed training
for citizenship POCs at Fort Hood; the services should investigate
whether POCs at other installations could receive similar training. By
71. In focus groups held as part of a previous study, we were surprised that
many non-citizen recruits (in bootcamp at the time) were unaware of
the expedited citizenship provisions.
84
ensuring that servicemembers’ citizenship applications are in order
before they are sent to USCIS, skilled installation-based personnel
could facilitate the process and shorten application processing times.
Second, we believe that the services should provide installation-based
immigration assistance to the dependents of servicemembers.72 We
learned in our interviews that the dependents of non-citizen servicemembers often think they are automatically in a legal immigration
status. For example, an person in the United States on a student visa
may marry a non-citizen servicemember and wrongly believe that no
change in status is necessary. In fact, those who have not continually
updated their status with USCIS can be prosecuted or deported.
This is not a problem that affects only the servicemember’s dependents; it can have spillover effects on the retention and job performance of the servicemember. Although there are legal options for
keeping dependents in the country (such as filing for humanitarian
visas through a local congressional office or filing for a humanitarian
parole through USCIS), servicemembers will need help navigating
these procedures.
72. Currently, not all military installations offer services to assist these
individuals.
85
Conclusions
Non-citizens are a vital part of our country’s military. Demographic
trends and new incentives (including new language programs and
expedited citizenship), make it likely that their numbers within the
military’s ranks will grow. These non-citizen recruits will provide the
services with a more richly diverse force (in terms of race/ethnicity,
language, and culture). Non-citizens also perform very well; figure 21
summarizes the attrition rates for citizen and non-citizen personnel.
Figure 21. A summary of the attrition rates of citizen and non-citizen
servicemembers
Non-citizens
35
Citizens
Attrition rate
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3-month
36-month
In short, we find that non-citizens do remarkably well in the military—both throughout bootcamp and the first term of service—and
that the effects are strong and statistically significant. Many of them
pursue citizenship while in the military, and this is positively correlated with retention. Non-citizens provide the military with a rich
pool of diverse recruits who have significant potential to succeed.
87
Appendix A
Appendix A: More on policies and procedures
for recruiting non-citizens
Verification of LPR status
Concern about the validity of recruits’ social security numbers, alien
registration numbers, and place of birth arose in the fall of 2002. A
verification process (started in December 2002) required that Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM)73 personnel verify
original documents required by each service for those in the delayed
entry program as of 16 December 2002. DoD later developed standard source documents for verification of these fields (see table 20).
In August 2004, MEPCOM began coordinating with the Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC), the Social Security Administration
(SSA), and USCIS for further verification of LPR status. The MEPS
Liaison submits Alien Registration numbers for non-citizen recruits
to DMDC, who forwards them to USCIS for verification. Similarly,
SSNs are sent to DMDC and then forwarded to SSA. Verification usually is completed within 24 hours [14, 52]. If should be noted, however, that commanding officers in the Recruiting Commands are
ultimately responsible for document verification.
The MEPS Liaison NCO is responsible for further review and validation of all documents. He or she must personally inspect all validating
documents and sign a statement to that effect before shipping [13, p.
3-29]. The MEPS Liaison must verify all documents again at least 48
hours before the recruit ships for active duty.
73. MEPCOM is responsible for verifying the mental qualifications, medical
qualifications, and eligibility of applicants.
89
Appendix A
Table 20. DoD Standard Source documentsa,b
Place of birth
Naturalized
FSM/RMI/
Jay Treaty of
Not U.S.
U.S. bornc
U.S. citizen
Palaud
1796 Natives
citizens
Birth Certificate Birth Certificate Birth Certificate Birth Certificate Birth Certificate
U.S. Passporte
Passport
Passport
Passport
Passport
DD 372f
FS 240g
DS 1350h
FS 545i
SSN
Original Social Original Social Original Social Original Social Original Social
Security Card
Security Card
Security Card
Security Card
Security Card
DD 214j
DD 214
DD 214
DD 214
DD 214 NGB
NGB Form 22k NGB Form 22
NGB Form 22
NGB Form 22
Form 22
Citizenship
Birth Certificate U.S. Passport
Birth Certificate Birth Certificate INS G-845n
U.S. Passport
INS N-550/551/ Passport
Tribal Letter/
INS I-551o, p
l
DD 372
570
INS N-550/551/
Card
FS 240
INS N-560/
570
DS 1350
561m
INS N-560/561
FS 545
a. Source: Mr. Michael Styka at USMC Recruiting Command.
b. All must be originals, except for the Birth Certificate, DD 372, FS 240, DS 1350, FS 545, and Tribal Letter/Card,
which can be “Certified True Copies.”
c. People born in Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam are U.S. citizens. Source: USC 8,
Sections 1402-1407.
d. Federated States of Micronesia/the Republic of the Marshall Islands/Palau.
e. Must have been originally issued for 5 or more years.
f. Request for Verification of Birth
g. Counselor Report of Birth Abroad (of a U.S. citizen)
h. Certificate of Birth
i. Certificate of Birth Abroad
j. Certificate of Release/Discharge from Active Duty
k. National Guard only
l. Naturalization Certificate
m.Certificate of Citizenship
n. Document Verification Request
o. Permanent Residence Card (green card)
p. In addition, USCIS says that (1) an I-94 Arrival/Departure Record on which is stamped in the lower right-hand
corner the words “Processed for I-551” and (2) a passport from the country of nationality in which is stamped on
one of the pages “Processed for I-551...” are acceptable proofs of citizenship, but these are not currently listed in
the DoD guidance. The Navy Recruiting Manual lists these two proofs as acceptable and also includes a
Form I-688—a Temporary Resident Alien Card with a black sticker or stamp.
90
Appendix A
Background investigations
Entrance National Agency Check (ENTNAC)
Recruiting personnel are responsible for preparing three forms used
for the ENTNAC: SF Form 86 (Questionnaire for National Security
Positions),74 Form S2280 or Form 258 (fingerprinting forms), and
DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing).75 Fingerprinting is
done at the MEPS. The ENTNAC may be automated or manual, but
non-citizens do not qualify for the automated check [53, p. 48].76 The
ENTNAC must be submitted on the date that the applicant contracts
into the DEP, and usually takes 3 to 5 days. In most cases, recruits
cannot depart for training until the ENTNAC results are received
[53, p. 48].
National Agency Check/Local Agency Check/Credit Check
(NACLC)
The NACLC must be submitted to OPM within 90 days of the date of
the ENTNAC submission. OPM recently estimated that it takes an
average of 200 days to close a NACLC investigation [29]. Non-citizens
are processed as enlistments only (the citizen box on the NACLC is
left blank and the non-citizen is not adjudicated); when the noncitizen becomes a citizen, his or her NACLC can be forwarded for
clearance adjudication to the appropriate service department.
Proof of education
Verification of educational credentials is service specific, but all those
educated abroad must have an evaluation of their educational level
performed before enlistment.
74. The electronic version of this form is called the Enlisted Personnel
Security Questionnaire (EPSQ).
75. The Services use DD Form 1966 to request applicant enlistment and
MEPS uses it to report accession data. It standardizes information collected across the Services and the way in which such information is
recorded.
76. Among the criteria for an automated ENTNAC is that the enlistee must
be a U.S. citizen at birth.
91
Appendix A
Air Force
In the Air Force, evaluations can be obtained through a state department of education, college or university listed in the current education directory, or authorized credentials evaluation agency.77 College
credits must be earned from an institution listed in the Accredited
Institutions of Postsecondary Education publication. If not, the credits must be evaluated by an institution listed in that publication. The
applicant must pay any associated fees [8, p. 34].
Army
In the Army, applicants completing high school or having college
credits from foreign78 colleges or universities must have their documents evaluated and accredited by either:
• A state board of education, a state university or recognized university or college listed in the Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education publication.
• Any organization that is a member of the National Association
of Credential Evaluation Service (NACES).
The applicant must pay any associated fees [7].
Marine Corps
In the Marine Corps, the foreign credential must be deemed equivalent to a traditional American high school program of instruction
before enlistment. This can be done by (1) the country’s consulate
(unless listed as a hostile/instable country), (2) a state board of education, state university, or recognized university listed in the Directory
77. The credentials evaluation agency must be a member of the National
Association for Foreign Student Affairs.
78. The U.S. Virgin Islands, fhe Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Marshall Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Canada, Puerto Rico, the DoD Dependent School System, and Overseas American-sponsored Elementary and
Secondary Schools assisted by the U.S. Department of State are exempt
from this evaluation requirement, and their education documents are
treated in the same manner as any U.S. school.
92
Appendix A
of Postsecondary Institutions, or (3) foreign language services that are
accredited by the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and
Admissions Officers. The recruiting station must verify the educational
credentials, and document them on DD Form 1966 [13, p. 3-51].
Navy
Naval Recruiting Command evaluates foreign education credentials
using the Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers’
Projects for International Education Research (PIER) World Education Series publications. Recruiters must submit a request for evaluation of foreign education to the Education Service Specialist with the
applicant’s diploma and transcript (with translation) at least 2 days
before the applicant’s processing at MEPS [14, p. 2-110].
Documentation
All verification documents must be in English. Any documents not in
English must be translated. In the Marine Corps, translation must be
done by a competent person who is not affiliated with the service, and
both the translated and the original document must be submitted [13,
p. 4-8]. The Army allows a bilingual Soldier to translate the documents.79 The Navy makes the applicant responsible for getting a certified English translation, and both the original and translated copies
must be included in the applicant’s packet [14, p. 2-54]. The Air Force
requires that the applicant get documents translated and pay all associated fees. The translation must include a statement from the translator that he or she is competent to translate and that the translation is
correct.
English proficiency
The services require a certain level of English proficiency.80 For example, the Army states that “the ability to read, write, and speak sufficient
79. The bilingual Soldier must have the language skill identifier in his or her
MOS, he or she must sign the translation, and a commissioned officer
must witness his or her signature.
80. There are a few special programs that allow for the enlistment of nonproficient English speakers.
93
Appendix A
English to understand the oath of enlistment and the ENTNAC interview” is an unwaiverable requirement [7, p. 6]. Navy policy dictates
that “applicants who have difficulty expressing themselves or otherwise understanding English will not be accepted for enlistment” [14,
p. 2-55].
When the MEPS Liaison NCO verifies an applicant’s documents, he
or she also must sign a statement certifying that “the applicant, without further instruction, is able to read, write, and speak the English
language sufficiently to complete recruit training” [13, p. 3-29].81
Those found not to be proficient in English are referred to a MEPS
section chief for evaluation, which can include administration of the
English Comprehension Level Test (ECLT).82
The MEPS section chief subsequently may submit a recommendation
for termination of processing to the MEPS commander. The
individual services’ recruiting offices have the ability to issue a waiver
for the MEPS interview requirements if they choose to do so [53].
Waiver requirements
In the Marine Corps, there is an administrative waiver code (LYB) for
aliens or U.S. citizens who have traveled or resided in a nation whose
interests are inimical to those of the United States or those who have
traveled or resided in countries with areas of instability (see table 21)
[13, p. 3-31].83 For recruits with this administrative code (which is
81. The Navy additionally requires that the Navy Enlisted Classifier attest to
the applicant’s fluency in English [14, p. 2-55]. There are some exceptions, however. For example, the MEPSs have added civilian translators
to their staffs to assist 09Ls (discussed later), who are allowed to have
translators with them during processing.
82. Theoretically, all recruits whose native language is not English should
take the ECLT at the MEPS.
83. Residence refers to that occurring after the applicant’s 15th birthday.
Travel includes more than two trips within 5 years preceding enlistment,
but excludes family vacation, school trips, sporting events, or other similar, short-lived group-sponsored visits. In practice, however, virtually no
recruits receive these waivers.
94
Appendix A
granted at the CG MCRC level), recruiters must either get proof of a
favorable ENTNAC or a verification receipt from OPM showing a
request for a NACLC before the applicant can ship [13, p. 3-31; 54].
Table 21. Hostile countries/countries of instabilitya
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Bulgaria
Boznia & Herzegovina
Cambodia
Colombia
China (including Tibet)
Cuba
Estonia
Romania
Ethiopia
Hungary
Iran
Iraq
North Korea
Montenegro
Kurile Islands
South Sakhalin (Karafuto)
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Libyan Arab Republic
Lithuania
Mongolian People’s Republic
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Somalia
Southern Yemen
Syria
Commonwealth of Independent
States (former USSR)
Vietnam
Former Yugoslavian Nation
Yemen
Serbia
a. [13, p. 3-30].
The Navy, Army, and Air Force do not require a formal waiver, but all
military applicants have to disclose travel to hostile countries on their
EPSQ for 5 years before their enlistment date. OPM (the investigative
authority) examines any questionable travel and, if warranted, forwards the case to the service recruiting command for an eligibility
determination [55].
95
Appendix A
Occupational restrictions
The biggest practical limitation on non-citizens in the military is the
ability to obtain a security clearance, which currently requires U.S. citizenship.
Many military jobs require a clearance for entry and/or promotion.
For example, the Army notes that, although non-citizens can enlist,
they may not enlist for any MOS, Assignment, or Option that requires
a security clearance [7, section 5-60]. The guidance counselor at
MEPS is required to verify this [53, section 6-5]. The Marine Corps
requires a pre-enlistment brief, during which non-citizen applicants
are informed of these restrictions [13, p. 3-30]. Tables 22 through 25
through show examples of occupations requiring U.S. citizenship, by
service.
Security clearances are handled at the unit level. Each Commanding
Officer must delegate, in writing, the responsibility for administering
the security program to the unit's security manager.84 One of the
security manager’s responsibilities is to process security clearance
requests for servicemembers. If a servicemember without a clearance
is ordered to handle classified material, it is up to the security manager to initial the clearance request.
Recent changes in these processes should speed this process. As discussed earlier, the investigations for clearances are now handled
through the NACLC. Currently, all new recruits have these investigations, which take about 200 days. Information for citizen recruits is
sent for service adjudication after the NACLC investigation is complete. Non-citizens will have a completed investigation, but the results
would have to be sent to the service for adjudication to initiate the
clearance. Any servicemember who entered before the NACLC was
standard for all recruits will still need the investigation as the first step
in obtaining a clearance.
84. In operational commands, this is usually someone in the Intelligence
section.
96
Appendix A
Table 22. Some Army MOSs requiring U.S. citizenshipa
MOS
13C
14E
18C
24N
31P
35E
45G
52E
55D
74B
93B
96Z
MOS title
Tactical Automated Fire Control
Systems Specialist
PATRIOT Fire Control Enhanced
Operator/Maintainer
Special Forces Engineer Sergeant
CHAPARRAL System Mechanic
Microwave Systems OperatorMaintainer
Radio and Communications
Security Repairer
Fire Control Repairer
Prime Power Production Specialist
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Specialist
Information Systems OperatorAnalyst
Aeroscout Observer
Intelligence Senior Sergeant
a. For complete list, see http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/
p611_21.pdf.
Table 23. Some Navy ratings requiring U.S. citizenshipa
Rating
CTA
ET
IS
MT
PC
Rating title
Cryptologic Technician
(Administrative)
Electronics Technician
Intelligence Specialist
Missile Technician
Postal Clerk
a. For complete list, see http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/
bup_updt/upd_CD/BUPERS/OCCSTD/Occstd.pdf
97
Appendix A
Table 24. Some Air Force AFSCs requiring U.S. citizenshipa
AFSC
1A0X1
1C1X1
1N5X1
2A0X1B
2A7X3
2P0X1
2W1X1C
3C3X1
3V0X3
7S0X1
8M000
9S100
AFSC title
Inflight Refueler
Air Traffic Controller
Electronic Signal Intelligence
Exploitation Specialist
Avionics Test Station and
Components Maintenance
Specialist
Aircraft Structural Maintenance
Specialist
Precision Measurement Equipment
Laboratory Specialist
Aircraft Armament System
Specialist
Communication Component
System Planning and
Implementation Specialist
Visual Information Product
Documentation Specialist
Special Investigator
Postal Specialist
Applied Geophysics
a. For complete list, see http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/
36/afman36-2108/afman36-2108.pdf, Attachment 39
Table 25. Some Marine Corps MOSs requiring U.S. citizenshipa
MOS
0161
0211
0844
2336
2611
5811
MOS title
Postal Clerk
Counterintelligence/HUMINT
Specialist
Field Artillery Fire Control Man
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Technician
Cryptologic Digital Network
Technician/Analyst
Military Police
a. For complete list, see http://www.usmc.mil/directiv.nsf/
9d816d546727ed748525651700581631/
4744c049b38f2baf85256af1005cf8fd/$FILE/
MCO%20P1200.7Z.pdf
98
Appendix B
Appendix B: More on the Army Translator Aide
(09L) pilot program
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (ASD
P&R) and Army G-1, at the direction of DoD, have created a program
aimed at attracting citizen and non-citizen native and heritage speakers of Arabic (modern standard and Iraqi dialects), Dari (Persian
Afghan and Persian-Dari), Kurdish, Pashto (Afghan and Peshawari),
and Turkish into the Army through the Individual Ready Reserve
(IRR).85 The program’s goal is to produce soldiers who can work in
the Translator Aide (09L) MOS overseas.86
Enlistment requirements with regard to age, English proficiency, and
ASVAB/AFQT have been relaxed as part of the program.87 Enlistees
commit to an 8-year Military Service Obligation (MSO) in the IRR. All
enlist as either E-3s or E-4s, and are awarded E-4 upon completion of
85. DoD guidance included (1) languages of interest, (2) enlistment into
the IRR, and (3) a shortened basic training course (no longer in place).
The program was directed in February 2003 and implemented in July
2003. The first student arrived at DLIELC in September 2003. Noncitizens are enlisted as 09Ls; most citizens (except those who do not
qualify) are enlisted as 97L (Translators/Interpreters).
86. The idea was to provide more translators “on the ground” since it was
believed that other translators were occupied with higher-level
activities.
87. Recruits may be up to 40 years old and must score at least L2/S2 in language proficiency for their native language (meaning they are very fluent) and demonstrate some English proficiency (by scoring at least a 40
on the ECLT). There is no minimum ASVAB score requirement for
those going into the English language training; those not requiring
English language training must have a minimum ASVAB score of 10.
They must also eventually score an R2 by taking the DLPT while at
Lackland.
99
Appendix B
their advanced training.88 As of 28 June 2004, those enlisting are eligible for an enlistment bonus of $7,000 [56].89
After accession, the 09Ls who do not speak English fluently go to Fort
Sill for 3 days for initial processing before proceeding to DLIELC,
where they undergo intensive English language training for a minimum of 6 weeks up to 6 months.90, 91, 92
Initially, attrition out of the English language training was very high
(about 50 percent).93 This was believed to stem from both cultural
differences and misunderstanding on the part of the recruits.94 The
Army took several steps to counter this attrition and, in the most
recent quarter, attrition had dropped to less than 30 percent.95
88. This is a recent change: see USAREC MSG 04-082.
89. The bonus is payable upon completion of their advanced training: 50
percent upon award of MOS, 25 percent at the 2-year anniversary, and
25 percent at the 4-year anniversary of enlistment.
90. During this time, recruits get their initial clothing issues, create records,
receive vaccinations, and are screened for medical, dental, and vision
deficiencies and financial problems.
91. Those scoring less than 80 on the ECLT (about 1/2 to 2/3 of 09L
recruits) must undergo English language training. Those already fluent
in English, scoring 80+ on the ECLT, and with an English Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) score greater than or equal to L2/S2 go directly
to basic training.
92. The length of training depends on when English language proficiency
is achieved.
93. Mental problems and refusal to train are the main reasons for attrition.
94. Apparently, many recruits wrongly believed that they were to serve as
civilian translators rather than Soldiers. Cultural difficulties included
unwillingness to train with women and requests for modified bathroom
and dining facilities. Lackland has made several accommodations to
address these issues.
95. This included adding staff (so that the program was staffed more like a
basic than an advanced training program) and requiring 09Ls to sign a
5-page statement, which summarizes the terms and benefits of their service and has been translated into eight languages, at the MEPS (developed in April 2004). Lackland also plans to add an Arabic-speaking drill
instructor (perhaps a 09L graduate) to its staff in the near future [57].
100
Appendix B
To complete their training, 09Ls in the English language training
program must attain at least an 80 on the ECLT,96 an OPI score of
L2/S2 (listening and speaking), a Defense Language Proficiency Test
(DLPT) score of L2/R2 (listening and reading) in their target language, and an ASVAB score of at least 10.
After completing their training, 09Ls go to Fort Jackson for 9 weeks
of Basic Combat Training 97 and 6 weeks of Advanced Individual
Training (AIT) (which is specific to 09Ls).98 They are placed on leave
for 2 weeks before reporting for duty in accordance with their mobilization orders.
Most of the program’s recruits are non-citizens. They do not need citizenship/security clearances (the 09L billets do not require clearances), although they undergo the NACLC and an additional
counterintelligence investigation. While the 09Ls are in AIT, those
who are non-citizens and want to become citizens get assistance with
their applications. Those non-citizens who desire citizenship have
their applications expedited immediately after they complete AIT.99
96. PERSCOM has authorized a 5-point waiver. The ECLT is administered
monthly.
97. 09Ls originally went through a separate, shorter (6-week) basic training
course but are now integrated into the regular 9-week classes with other
recruits. Although there were fears that attrition would rise for 09Ls
after this integration, it did not. If a basic training course is not starting
within 15 days of the recruit finishing his or her English language training, the recruit returns home to assist with local recruiting through the
Hometown Recruiter Assistance Program [58].
98. This originally was only 3 weeks of training, but the Army recently added
2 weeks of modern standard Arabic training (for document translation)
and another week for review. The first class to complete this longer
advanced training program graduated on 16 December 2004 [57].
99. Because 09Ls train under “active-duty for training” orders, they cannot
apply for citizenship until they are mobilized. However, on the last day
of AIT (the day they become mobilized), the company commander
takes non-citizens who wish to apply for citizenship to the local USCIS
office (in Charleston, SC), where their photographs and fingerprints
are taken and their applications are submitted. USCIS marks these
applications “linguist--special case,” and they get special processing at
USCIS Lincoln.
101
Appendix B
So far, approximately 270 recruits have signed up for the program,
167 students have come to DLIELC for training (67 of whom graduated), and 44 have completed their advanced training.100 They are
mobilized for 1 year with an optional 1-year extension.
Because the program is a pilot, many issues still need to be resolved—
including determining the right proponency and developing a career
path. The Army is doing a survey-based, in-house evaluation of the
program, which will be released in August 2005 [57].
100.The class that graduated in December added another 20 or so to this
number. The program’s accession goal is about 250 annually [57].
102
Appendix C
Appendix C: Variable definitions
This appendix presents the variable definitions and the logistic
regressions for 3-month attrition (see table 26).
Table 26. Variable definitions
Variable
Variable definition
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
3-month attrition
1 if recruit attrites (does not complete) the first 3
months of service; else 0.
36-month attrition
1 if recruit attrites in the first 36 months of service; else
0. This variable is defined for accessions with initial
contracts of 3 or more years. We use separation codes
to define attrites, counting early releases within 3
months of the obligation end date as completers.
Became a citizen
1 if recruit is observed becoming a citizen while in the
service; else 0. This variable is defined for non-citizen
recruits.
Months to
Number of months from entering the service to the
citizenship
earliest September snapshot that a recruit is observed
as being a citizen. This variable is defined for noncitizen recruits we observe becoming citizens while in
the service.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Non-citizen
1 if recruit is a non-citizen; else 0. There are also 5
non-citizen variables that categorize the race/ethnicity
of non-citizens as Hispanic, Black, White, API, or
other. These variables are 1 if the recruit is a non-citizen of that race/ethnicity; else 0.
Race/ethnic
A set of 0/1 variables that describe the recruit’s race/
identifiers
ethnic background. Each recruit has a value of 1 in one
of the following variables: Hispanic, Asian Pacific
Islander (API), White, Black, Native American, or
Other race/ethnic.
Female
1 if recruit is female, else 0.
Educational
We have a series of 0/1 variables that define educabackground
tional background.
Dropout
1 if the recruit has no educational credentials (Tier III),
else 0.
103
Appendix C
Table 26. Variable definitions (continued)
Variable
GED
One semester
college
HSDG
Associate degree
(AA/AS)
BA/BS+
Variable definition
1 if the recruit is Tier II, else 0.
1 if the recruit’s credential is one semester of college.
These recruits are in Tier I, but we have found they
have high attrition rates.
1 if the recruit is Tier I (except for one semester college, an AA, or a BA/BS or higher degree), else 0.
1 if the recruit has an AA/AS degree, else 0.
1 if the recruit has a Bachelor’s or higher degree, else
0.
Tier I and AFQT>49 1 if Tier I recruit who scored in the 50th percentile or
higher on the AFQT; else 0.
DEP
1 if recruit entered through the DEP; else 0.
DEP ge 3 months
1 if recruit was in the DEP for 3 or more months; else
0.
Accession waivers
We have a series of 0/1 variables that define accession
waivers. Recruits can have more than one accession
waiver, although few do.
Alcohol or drugs
1 if accession waiver for drugs or alcohol, else 0.
Serious legal
1 if accession waiver for a serious offense or a felony
(adult or juvenile), else 0.
Dependents
1 if accession waiver for dependents, else 0.
Medical/physical
1 if accession waiver for medical or physical reasons,
else 0.
Other waiver
1 if accession waiver for anything not in the above categories, else 0.
Married or
1 if the recruit was married or had dependents at
dependents at
accession, else 0.
accession
June-September
1 if accessions was in June-September, else 0.
accession
Fiscal year identifiers A set of 0/1 variables that reflect the fiscal year in
which recruit began bootcamp.
104
Appendix D
Appendix D: Three-month attrition regressions
This appendix contain the results of the logistic regressions for
3-month attrition (tables 27 through 29).
Table 27. Logistic regressions for 3-month attritiona
Non-citizen
RACE/ETHNICITY
API
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Other race/ethnic
White
Mean
FY88-94
FY95-02
.029
.045
Marginal effectb
FY88-94 FY95-02
-.018**
-.037**
.020
.186
.069
.007
.007
.711
.032
.189
.104
.014
.014
.647
-.041**
-.029**
-.032**
-.017**
-.016**
omitted
-.046**
-.029**
-.041**
-.008**
-.031**
omitted
Female
DEP
DEP >3months
.136
.863
.587
.180
.885
.530
.038**
-.008**
-.018**
.051**
-.007**
-.017**
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester college
HSDG
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and AFQT>49
.014
.032
.012
.015
.902
.008
.017
.654
.0108
.059
.017
.020
.867
.008
.020
.620
.032**
.022**
.041**
.039**
omitted
-.015**
-.013**
-.034**
.038**
.024**
.029**
.033**
omitted
-.015**
-.026**
-.028**
ACCESSION WAIVER
Alcohol or drugs
Serious legal
Dependents
.057
.062
.011
.061
.066
.015
.003**
.003**
.010**
.008**
.006**
.012**
105
Appendix D
Table 27. Logistic regressions for 3-month attritiona (continued)
Medical/physical
Other waiver
No waiver
Married or dependents
at accession
June-Sept. accession
SERVICE
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
Army
Dependent variable
Number of
observations
Chi square
Mean
FY88-94
FY95-02
.029
.054
.055
.049
.793
.773
Marginal effectb
FY88-94 FY95-02
.016**
.018**
-.002**
.009**
omitted
omitted
.118
.103
.012**
.021**
.464
.446
-.005**
-.016**
.154
.322
.143
.381
.182
.264
.183
.371
-.003**
.016**
.026**
omitted
-.014**
.019**
.013**
omitted
.094
.106
1,374,350
23,943
1,417,014
25,519
a. The regressions also controlled for the fiscal year of accessions and for observations
missing information for DEP. Omitted categories in the regressions are citizen, white,
high school diploma graduates, no accession waiver, Army accessions, and accessions in FY02.
b. ** indicates significance at the 1-percent level;
* indicates significance at the 5-percent level.
106
Appendix D
Table 28. Logistic regressions with non-citizen race/ethnic interactions
for 3-month attrition: FY95-FY02 accessionsa
Mean
FY88-94
FY95-02
Marginal effectb
FY88-94
FY95-02
CITIZENSHIP/RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic non-citizen
White non-citizen
Black non-citizen
API non-citizen
Other non-citizen
.009
.004
.006
.009
.002
.016
.005
.010
.011
.003
-.025**
-.009**
-.025**
-.013**
-.010
-.031**
-.033**
-.052**
-.030**
-.025**
RACE/ETHNICITY
API
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Other race/ethnic
.020
.186
.069
.007
.014
.032
.189
.104
.014
.028
-.043**
-.029**
-.031**
.001
-.018**
-.047**
-.029**
-.042**
.034**
-.033**
Female
DEP
DEP > 2 months
.136
.863
.587
.180
.885
.530
.038**
-.008**
-.018**
.051**
-.007**
-.017**
.014
.032
.012
.015
.008
.059
.017
.020
.032**
.022**
.041**
.039**
.039**
.024**
.029**
.033**
.008
.017
.654
.008
.020
.620
-.015**
-.013**
-.034**
-.015**
-.026**
-.028**
ACCESSION WAIVER
Alcohol or drugs
Serious legal
Dependents
Medical/physical
Other
.057
.062
.011
.029
.055
.061
.066
.015
.054
.049
.003**
.003**
.010**
.016**
-.002**
.008**
.006**
.012**
.018**
.009**
SERVICE
Air Force
.154
.182
-.003**
-.014**
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester college
Associate degree
BA/BS +
Tier I and AFQT>49
107
Appendix D
Table 28. Logistic regressions with non-citizen race/ethnic interactions
for 3-month attrition: FY95-FY02 accessionsa (continued)
Navy
Marine Corps
Married/dependents
Jun-Sep accession
Mean
FY88-94
FY95-02
.322
.264
.143
.183
.118
.464
.103
.446
.094
.106
1,374,350
23,966
1,417,014
25,588
Marginal effectb
FY88-94
FY95-02
.016**
.020**
.026**
.013**
.012**
-.005**
.021**
-.016**
Constant
Mean dependent
variable
Observations
Chi square
a. The regressions also controlled for the fiscal year of accessions and for observations
missing information for DEP.Omitted categories in the regressions are citizen, white,
high school diploma graduates, no accession waiver, Army accessions, and accessions in FY02.
b. ** indicates significance at the 1-percent level;
* indicates significance at the 5-percent level.
108
Appendix D
Table 29. Mean values and marginal effects from the 3-month attrition logit regression: FY95 to
FY02 accessionsa
Non-citizen (Hispanic)
Non-citizen (White)
Non-citizen (Black)
Non-citizen (API)
Non-citizen (Other)
Citizen
API
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Other race/ethnic
White
Female
DEP
DEP >3months
Dropout
GED
Adult education
HSDG
One semester college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and AFQT>49
Accession waiver
Alcohol or drugs
Serious legal
Dependents
Medical/physical
Other waiver
No waiver
Married or dependents
June-Sep accession
Air Force
Mean Partialb
.006
-.016*
.004
-.033**
.005
-.021**
.008
-.011
.002
-.033**
.975
omitted
.033
-.045**
.170
-.030**
.068
-.037**
.006
.039**
.022
-.031**
.707
omitted
.257
.026**
.932
-.005*
.659
-.015**
.001
-.000
.009
-.014**
.001
.078**
.952
omitted
.009
-.006
.009
-.009
.020
-.009**
.763
-.026**
Navy
Mean Partial
.017
-.042**
.005
-.034**
.012
-.062**
.018
-.045**
.003
-.036**
.945
omitted
.044
-.049**
.198
-.023**
.113
-.034**
.029
.041**
.041
-.028**
.604
omitted
.176
.015**
.853
-.007**
.516
-.024**
.027
.029**
.043
.024**
.032
.033**
.854
omitted
.025
.042**
.007
-.021**
.012
-.033**
.581
-.039**
Army
Mean Partial
.016
-.025**
.005
-.036**
.012
-.052**
.009
-.023**
.002
-.025**
.956
omitted
.027
-.052**
.223
-.040**
.101
-.051**
.009
.007
.021
-.039**
.628
omitted
.200
.088**
.883
-.002
.433
-.009**
.001
.008
.106
.025**
.014
.020**
.806
omitted
.026
.028**
.012
-.018**
.034
-.036**
.579
-.023**
Marine Corps
Mean Partial
.023
-.036**
.006
-.028**
.008
-.058**
.007
-.024**
.004
-.010
.952
omitted
.022
-.036**
.127
-.009**
.133
-.037**
.012
.030**
.029
-.034**
.689
omitted
.069
.053**
.885
-.005**
.617
-.023**
.003
.065**
.035
.040**
.014
.026**
.926
omitted
.014
.050**
.003
-.010
.005
-.031**
.621
-.026**
.001
.047
.010
.036
.031
.881
.085
.377
.035
.100
.022
.045
.103
.710
.094
.461
.009
.040
.002
.054
.008
.892
.142
.458
.264
.091
.034
.085
.073
.518
.056
.469
Observations
257,376
Chi square
3,292
Mean dependent variable .084
.011
-.000
.017**
.007**
.001
omitted
.000
-.004**
373,478
7,472
.123
.018**
.016**
.009**
.017**
.010**
omitted
.026**
-.025**
526,611
14,680
.103
-.014**
-.021**
-.013*
.021**
-.006
omitted
.022**
-.018**
.008**
.010**
.004
.021**
.008**
omitted
.037**
-.018**
259,549
4,544
.110
a. The regressions also controlled for the fiscal year of accessions and for observations missing information for
DEP.Omitted categories in the regressions are citizen, white, high school diploma graduates, no accession waiver,
Army accessions, and accessions in FY02.
b. This is the partial derivative or marginal effect. ** indicates significance at the 1-percent level; * indicates significance
at the 5-percent level.
109
Appendix E
Appendix E: Thirty-six month attrition
This appendix presents the results from the logistic regressions for
36-month attrition (see table 30).
Table 30. Marginal effects from the 36-month attrition logit regression: FY95–00 accessionsa
Non-citizen (Hispanic)
Non-citizen (White)
Non-citizen (Black)
Non-citizen (API)
Non-citizen (Other)
API
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Other race/ethnic
Female
DEP
DEP >3months
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and AFQT>49
Accession waiver
Alcohol or drugs
Serious legal
Dependents
Medical/physical
All services
Partialb
-.079**
-.087**
-.140**
-.094**
-.083**
-.106**
-.032**
-.086**
.073**
-.060**
.105**
-.032**
-.050**
.127**
.097**
.099**
.105**
-.047**
-.078**
-.049**
.047**
.053**
.027**
.019**
Air Force
Partial
-.057**
-.066**
-.079**
-.055**
-.094**
-.096**
-.004
-.067**
.122**
-.059**
.054**
-.035**
-.045**
.044
-.017*
.146**
-.009
-.036**
-.110**
-.053**
Army
Partial
-.086**
-.105**
-.139**
-.083**
-.096**
-.111**
-.063**
-.104**
.050**
-.071**
.186**
-.023**
-.036**
-.065**
.112**
.090**
.105**
-.048**
-.090**
-.034**
Navy
Partial
-.094**
-.101**
-.168**
-.130**
-.091**
-.114**
-.026**
-.071**
.075**
-.052**
.034**
-.030**
-.067**
.111**
.093**
.107**
.124**
-.067**
-.082**
-.069**
-.011
.026**
.026**
-.002
.094**
.008*
-.061**
.021**
.053**
.066**
.010
.006
Marine Corps
Partial
-.060**
-.064**
-.131**
-.051**
-.055**
-.087**
-.008**
-.087**
.057**
-.051**
.105**
-.021**
-.053**
.158**
.110**
.078**
.091**
-.051**
.004
-.059**
.044**
.058**
.026**
.036**
111
Appendix E
Table 30. Marginal effects from the 36-month attrition logit regression: FY95–00 accessionsa
(continued)
All services
Partialb
Other waiver
.033**
Married or dependents
.018**
June-Sep accession
-.018**
Air Force
-.074**
Navy
-.008**
Marine Corps
-.055**
Observations
1,037,897
Chi square
41,226
Mean dependent variable
.316
Air Force
Partial
.026**
-.037**
-.001
Army
Partial
.019**
.026**
-.023**
Navy
Partial
.040**
.030**
-.022**
Marine Corps
Partial
.018**
.042**
-.026**
187,381
2,876
.256
375,029
18,853
.344
280,080
12,242
.342
195,407
6,958
.286
a. The regressions also controlled for the fiscal year of accessions and for observations missing information for
DEP. Omitted categories in the regressions are citizen, white, high school diploma graduates, no accession
waiver, Army accessions, and accessions in FY02.
b. This is the partial derivative or marginal effect of the variable on 36-month attrition.
** indicates significance at the 1-percent level;
* indicates significance at the 5-percent level.
112
Appendix F
Appendix F: Non-citizen accessions who
became U.S. citizens while in the military
Table 31 presents logistic regressions for the probability that a noncitizen accession became a U.S. citizen while in the military.
Table 31. Mean values and marginal effects from becoming a U.S. citizen logit regressions:
FY95-FY02 non-citizen accessionsa,b
Combined samplec
Mean
Partial
SERVICEd
Air Force
Navy
RACE/ETHNICITYe
API
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Other race/
ethnic
EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROUNDf
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester
college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and
AFQT>49
AGE AT
ACCESSIONg
19 years
20 to 24 years
25 or older
.159
.518
.137**
-.167**
Navy
Mean
Partial
—
—
—
—
Air Force
Mean
Partial
—
—
.315
.187
.247
.001
.098
—
—
—
—
.148
.165
.469
.006
.084
—
—
.269
.200
.351
.003
.068
.006
-.011
-.035**
.041
.022*
.330
.226
.310
.002
.048
-.001
-.003
-.031**
-.034
.025
.010
.018
.019
.023
-.037
.004
-.037*
.019
.018
.022
.027
.029
-.030
-.012
-.029
.024
.001
.008
.001
.012
.060
.031
-.088
.036
.002
.017
.016
.019
-.021
.023
-.033
-.001
.010
.018
.494
.080**
.091**
.014**
.011
.024
.423
.064**
.089**
.015**
.015
.021
.686
.103*
.000
-.024
.005
.006
.513
.057
.116*
.030**
.216
.357
.370
.011
.007
.013
.197
.367
.382
.019
.021
.024*
.011
.008
.029
.245
.307
.379
.001
-.008
-.007
.220
.423
.309
.030
-.028
-.040*
.164
.014
Marine Corps
Mean
Partial
-.002
-.019
-.044**
.084
.018
113
Appendix F
Table 31. Mean values and marginal effects from becoming a U.S. citizen logit regressions:
FY95-FY02 non-citizen accessionsa,b (continued)
Combined samplec
Mean
Partial
OTHER
CHARACTERISTICSh
Female
Married/
dependents
FY OF ACCESSIONi
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Mean dependent
variable
Number of
observations
Navy
Mean
Partial
Air Force
Mean
Partial
Marine Corps
Mean
Partial
.158
.106
.022**
.045**
.170
.131
.027**
.027**
.292
.093
.036**
.109**
.073
.072
-.032
.039*
.096
.108
.123
.132
.138
.136
.135
.263
.173**
.166**
.161**
.141**
.103**
.089**
.108**
.097
.111
.127
.134
.141
.135
.136
.164
.096**
.086**
.084**
.053**
.025**
.034**
.055**
.095
.097
.100
.118
.124
.153
.137
.469
.302**
.331**
.357**
.399*
.240**
.197**
.236**
.096
.109
.127
.134
.140
.130
.132
.319
.219**
.204**
.182**
.149**
.150**
.108**
.115**
39,223
39,223
20,334
20,334
6,252
6,252
12,63
7
12,63
7
a. The race/ethnic variables are incorrect in the FY03 accession data; thus, we omitted FY03 accessions from the
regression analysis.
b. * significant at 5% level;
** significant at 1% level.
c. We are unsure of the quality of the Army citizenship data, so our combined sample only includes Navy, Air Force,
and Marine Corps non-citizen accessions.
d. Omitted category is Marine Corps.
e. Omitted category is white.
f. Omitted category is high school diploma graduate (HSDG).
g. Omitted category is 18 years of age or younger.
h. Omitted categories are male, non-A-cell recruit, and no dependents at accessions.
i. Omitted category is FY-2 accessions.
114
Appendix G
Appendix G: Time-to-citizenship regressions
Table 32 presents mean values and regression results for time-tocitizenship regression.
Table 32. Mean values and coefficients from time-to-citizenship regressions: FY95 to FY02 noncitizen accessions who became U.S. citizens while in the militarya,b
Combined Samplec
Mean
Coef
SERVICEd
Air Force
Navy
RACE/ETHNICITYe
API
Black
Hispanic
Native Am
Other race/ethnic
EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROUNDf
Dropout
GED
Adult education
One semester
college
Associate degree
BA/BS+
Tier I and
AFQT>49
AGE AT ACCESSIONg
19 years
20 to 24 years
Over 25 years
Navy
Mean
Coef
Air Force
Mean
Coef
Marine Corps
Mean
Coef
.285
.324
12.14**
13.03**
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
.271
.193
.322
.004
.086
3.61**
5.44**
2.76**
-5.87
2.06*
.350
.236
.263
.002
.058
7.29**
7.12**
4.08**
-9.95
2.27
.336
.179
.228
.001
.109
2.06
4.95**
2.52*
7.63
1.49
.158
.168
.438
.008
.093
-.267
4.77**
1.94*
-6.86*
.817
.005
.016
.013
.022
.437
.656
.368
-.746
.013
.019
.022
.033
.929
-.112
-.547
-.356
.001
.010
.001
.010
-19.81
2.59
1.24
1.25
.001
.018
.014
.021
3.49
.919
-.250
.720
.013
.023
.553
1.62
-.074
-1.63**
.017
.040
.458
2.94
-1.08
-3.82**
.019
.024
.681
3.03
.799
-.917
.005
.008
.537
-6.44
4.85
-.216
.219
.359
.369
.921
1.71
.113
.188
.363
.405
2.83
3.78
3.06
.217
.421
.319
.709
.660
-2.43
.246
.310
.375
-.035
1.48
-.742
115
Appendix G
Table 32. Mean values and coefficients from time-to-citizenship regressions: FY95 to FY02 noncitizen accessions who became U.S. citizens while in the militarya,b (continued)
Combined Samplec
Mean
Coef
OTHER
CHARACTERISTICSh
Female
Married or
dependents
FISCAL YEAR OF
ACCESSIONi
FY 1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
constant
Mean dependent
variable
Observations
Navy
Mean
Coef
Air Force
Mean
Coef
Marine Corps
Mean
Coef
.177
.114
.557
2.90**
.192
.157
-.608
4.23**
.311
.111
.827
.724
.067
.081
3.27**
3.33**
.118
.127
.142
.144
.131
.125
.132
24.47**
26.12**
23.14**
21.81**
18.29**
11.87**
3.76**
-.858
.122
.133
.152
.137
.118
.119
.139
31.29**
32.23**
26.26**
23.94**
20.46**
12.71**
6.84**
5.69*
.109
.117
.125
.158
.126
.140
.137
27.20**
31.28**
30.12**
29.79**
25.09**
15.90**
1.43
8.76**
.121
.131
.145
.141
.145
.118
.122
15.86**
16.51**
14.92**
13.13**
11.16**
7.62**
3.19*
6.28**
27.29
10,300
33.25
10,300
3,333
31.23
3,333
2,934
19.49
2,934
4,033
4,033
a. The race/ethnic variables are incorrect in the FY03 accession data; thus, we omitted FY03 accessions from the regression analysis.
b. * significant at 5% level;
** significant at 1% level.
c. We are unsure of the quality of the Army citizenship data, so our combined sample only includes Navy, Air Force,
and Marine Corps non-citizen accessions who are observed becoming citizens by September 2003.
d. Omitted category is Marine Corps.
e. Omitted category is white.
f. Omitted category is high school diploma graduate (HSDG).
g. Omitted category is 18 years of age at accession.
h. Omitted categories are male, non-A-cell recruits, and no dependents at accession.
i. Omitted category is FY02 accessions.
116
References
[1] U.S. Census Bureau. Foreign-Born Population of the United States
Current Population Survey - March 1995 Detailed Tables. 12 Sep
2000. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://www.census.gov/
population/www/socdemo/foreign/for95dtabs.html>
[2] Luke J. Larsen. The Foreign-Born Population in the United States:
2003: Population Characteristics. P20-551, Aug 2004
[3] Bruce Finley. “Military Eyeing ‘Unknowns.’” Denver Post, 24
Feb 2004
[4] Valerie Alvord. “Non-citizens fight and die for adopted country.” USA Today, 8 Apr 2003. Web site accessed Jan 2005
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-08noncitizen-usat_x.htm>
[5] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Estimates of the Legal
Permanent Resident Population and Population Eligible to Naturalize in 2002, Prepared by Nancy F. Rytina, May 2004. Web site
accessed Jan 2005 <http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/lprest2002.pdf>
[6] Mary Beth Sheridan. “Anti-Terror Measures Delaying Green
Cards.” Washington Post, 23 Sep 2004, p. A1
[7] Department of the Army. Personnel Procurement: Regular Army
and Army Reserve Enlistment Program. Army Regulation (AR)
601-210 28 Feb 1995. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r601_210.pdf>
[8] Air Education and Training Command. Recruiting Procedures
for the Air Force. ATEC Instruction 36-2002, 18 Apr 2000
117
[9] Lynn O’Neil and Omer Senturk. Noncitizens in the U.S. Military. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA, Mar 2004
[10] Russell Weigley. History of the United States Army. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1967
[11] Darlene Goring. “In Service to America: Naturalization of
Undocumented Alien Veterans.” Seton Hall Law Review, 31,
2000: 402
[12] Anthony Pido. The Filipinos in America: Macro/Micro Dimensions
of Immigration and Integration. New York: Center for Migration
Studies of New York, Inc., 1985
[13] Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. Military Personnel Procurement Manual, Volume 2: Enlisted Procurement. MCO P1100.72C/
PCN 10200590400, 18 Jun 2004
[14] Navy Recruiting Command. Navy Recruiting ManualEnlisted. COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, 11 Mar 2002
[15] Anita U. Hattiangadi, Lewis G. Lee, and Aline O. Quester.
Recruiting Hispanics: The Marine Corps Experience, Jan 2004
(CNA Research Memorandum D0009071.A2)
[16] Gina Medsker et al. U.S. Army Foreign Language Recruiting Initiative (FLRI): Midterm Evaluation, Final Midterm Report, 6 Oct
2003 (Human Resources Research Organization Report IR
03-54)
[17] Jeffrey Hickox. First Term Attrition of Fundamental Applied Skills
Training (FAST) Students. Unpublished thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Mar 1998
[18] Aline O. Quester et al. Final Report for CNA Study on Answering
Decision Makers’ Questions: Organizing Training Information for
Policy Analysis, Jun 1998 (CNA Research Memorandum 98-76)
[19] Souheila Al-Jadda. “Lost in Arabic Translation.” The Christian
Science Monitor, 16 Sep 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005
118
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/p09s01coop.html>
[20] Defense Security Service. “Frequently Asked Questions.”
updated 15 Aug 2003. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.dss.mil/aboutdss/faq.htm>
[21] Interview with Air Force CMSgt Dennis Drogo, AF/DPLAP,
Air Force Accession Policy, 25 May 2004
[22] E-mail exchange with Air Force Capt Sean P. Harrington,
Chief, Air Force Assignment & Classification Policy, Sep 2004
[23] Secretary of the Air Force. “Reenlistment in the United States
Air Force.” Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2606, 21 Nov 2001.
Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/
pubfiles/af/36/afi36-2606/afi36-2606.pdf>
[24] U.S Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. “Quick Military Statistics Reference
(Internal)”. Received from the Office of Citizenship press
office, 22 Nov 2004
[25] Kelly Wallace. “Bush Speeds Citizenship for Military.”
CNN.com, 3 Jul 2002. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/03/bush.military.citizenship/>
[26] U.S. Army Human Resources Command. “Soldier Citizenship
Application Program Update.” MILPER message number 04157, 6 May 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.armystudyguide.com/link_out/milper_messages.htm>
[27] Donna Miles. “Posthumous citizenships include family benefits.” Air Force Link, 5 Mar 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005
<http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007143>
[28] Donna Miles. “Posthumous citizenship on ‘fast track,’
includes family benefit for those killed in time of war.” The
Flagship, 18 Mar 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.flagshipnews.com/archives_2004/mar182004_9.shtml>
119
[29] Interview with Air Force Col Michael Pachuta and Mr. Bill
Gleason, OSD Morale, Welfare, and Recreation, 18 Jun 2004
[30] U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services, Office of Citizenship. Naturalization for Military Personnel. Web site accessed
Jan 2005 <http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/
MilitaryBrochurev7.pdf>
[31] Department of the Air Force. The Air Force Guide to Citizenship Application, Jul 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http:/
/www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/mpf/MPFWorkcenters/CustomerService/BCIS/AF%20Guide%20to%20Citizenship%20%20%20July%202004.doc>
[32] Jim Garamone. “DoD Studies Foreign Language Needs of
Future.” Armed Forces Information Service, 22 Jun 2004. Web site
accessed Jan 2005 <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/
Jun2004/n06222004_2004062204.html>
[33] Naval Personnel Command, Center for Career Development.
“Selective Reenlistment Bonus Calculator.” Stay NAVY website.
Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://www.staynavy.navy.mil/
Tools/SRB/default.asp> (with stated parameters for current
fiscal year)
[34] U.S. Department of Justice. Fact Sheet: Child Citizenship Act of
2000 (Public Law 107-395), 1 Dec 2000. Web site accessed Jan
2005 <http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/
adopted.htm>
[35] U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps. “Immigration
Information Center: Immigration & Nationality Law Basics.”
updated 5 Dec 2001. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.jagcnet.army.mil/8525689200431626>
[36] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Now that You Are
a Permanent Resident.“ updated 11 Mar 2003. Web site
accessed Jan 2005 <http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/permRes.htm>
120
[37] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “How Do I Renew
My Permanent Resident Card (Green Card)?” 30 Oct 2003.
Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://uscis.gov/graphics/
howdoi/renew.htm>
[38] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Forms and Fees.”
updated 4 Jan 2005. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm>
[39] U.S. Citizenship and Immmigration Services. Immigration
and Naturalization Act. Section 264, 8 U.S.C. 1304, Updated
30 Oct 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://uscis.gov/
lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-7146?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act264>
[40] U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Moves to
Revoke U.S. Citizenship of Former Nazi Ghetto Policeman
Who Shot Jews.” Press Release, 8 Jan 2004. Web site accessed
Jan 2005 <http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/January/
04_crm_005.htm>
[41] Pederson & Freedman, LLP. Your Rights and Duties as a Lawful
Permanent Resident of the United States. 21 May 2003. Web site
accessed Jan 2005 <http://www.usvisainfo.com/object/pdf/
IV/rights_duties_LPR.pdf>
[42] “Born Abroad.” CQ Daily Monitor, Vol. 36, No. 135, 12 Sep
2000: 7
[43] U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Federal Employment
of Non-Citizens: Detailed Policy Information with Citations,”
updated 25 Oct 1999. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.opm.gov/employ/html/Citizen.htm>
[44] Social Security Administration. “Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) For Noncitizens.” SSA Publication #05-11051,
Jan 2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://www.ssa.gov/
pubs/11051.html>
[45] Social Security Administration. “Your Payments While You
Are Outside The United States.” Based on SSA Publication
121
#05-10137, Jul 2002. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.ssa.gov/international/your_ss.html>
[46] James H. North. Length of Time in the Delayed-Entry Program and
Its Effect on Marine Corps First-Term Survival, Aug 1990 (CNA
Research Memorandum 2790006200)
[47] James H. North and Adebayo M. Adedeji. Rankings by Historical Attrition Rates of Potential Marine Corps Recruits, Sep 1991
(CNA Research Memorandum 2790021910)
[48] Aline O. Quester et al. Identifying Successful Marine Corps
Recruits, Apr 1990 (CNA Research Memorandum
2789031410/REV)
[49] Aline O. Quester. First-Term Attrition in the Marine Corps, Mar
1993 (CNA Research Memorandum 2792020000/final)
[50] William H. Sims. Personal Characteristics and Military Manpower,
Dec 1974 (CNA Research Memorandum 74-3024)
[51] Jennie W. Wenger and Apriel K. Hodari. Predictors of Attrition:
Attitudes, Behaviors and Educational Characteristics, Jul 2004
(CNA Research Memorandum D0010146.A2)
[52] Interview with Baltimore MEPS PAO, 5 Aug 2004
[53] Headquarters Departments of the Army, the Air Force, and
Marine Corps Order. Personnel Procurement Military Entrance
Processing Station (MEPS). Army Regulation 601-270/AFR33-7/
MCO P-1100.75C, 20 Dec 1999
[54] Marine Corps Recruiting Command. “New Department of
Defense (DoD) Enlistment Waiver Codes Implementation.”
MCRC Frost Call 033-99, 26 Apr 1999. Web site accessed Jan
2005
<http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/lao/Files/
Waiver_Codes.doc>
[55] Phone conversation with Bob Phillips, Commander, Navy
Recruiting Command, 9 Oct 2004
122
[56] U.S. Army Recruiting Command. “Army offering $7,000
enlistment bonus for translator aides.” Press Release, 25 Aug,
2004. Web site accessed Jan 2005 <http://
www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/download
09Lbonus0804.doc>
[57] Phone conversation with Naomi Verdugo, Army Assistant
Deputy for Recruiting and Retention, 19 Oct 2004
[58] Phone conversation with CAPT Gregory Carbajal, DLIELC/
LEOE, USAF, 10 Oct, 2004
123
List of figures
Figure 1. Population of “recruitable” age, by citizenship
status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Figure 2. Number of green cards issued . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Figure 3. Residency status of the non-citizen 18- to
24-year-old population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Figure 4. Educational attainment of non-citizens age
18 to 24, by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Figure 5. Educational attainment of legal permanent
residents age 18 to 24, by gender . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Figure 6. Educational attainment of non-citizens age
18 to 24 by region of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Figure 7. Educational attainment of LPRs (18-24) by region
of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Figure 8. Non-citizens age 18 to 24, high school graduate
or better and English language ability . . . . . . . .
18
Figure 9. Number of non-citizen accessions, by service . . . .
21
Figure 10. Non-citizen accessions as a share of all accessions,
by service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Figure 11. Educational attainment of accessions,
by citizenship status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Figure 12. Non-citizen accessions, by birth country . . . . . . .
23
Figure 13. Top five foreign birth countries for non-citizen
accessions, by service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
125
126
Figure 14. Race/ethnic distribution of accessions,
by citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Figure 15. Three-month attrition for non-citizen and citizen
recruits, all services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Figure 16. Numbers of new citizens by fiscal year of
citizenship reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
Figure 17. Percentage of non-citizen accessions that became
U.S. citizens by September 2003 . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Figure 18. Number of new citizens, by service and fiscal
year of accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
Figure 19. Percentage of non-citizen accessions that
became citizens by September 2003 . . . . . . . . .
74
Figure 20. Rough estimate of time-to-citizenship . . . . . . . .
79
Figure 21. A summary of the attrition rates of citizen and
non-citizen servicemembers . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
List of tables
Table 1. Standard terminology on citizenship and
immigration status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Table 2. Geographic distribution of LPRs age 18 to 24 . . . .
12
Table 3. Number of non-citizens age 18 to 24 by region
of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Table 4. English language ability of non-citizens age
18 to 24, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Table 5. Clearance requirements for Army and Navy
personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Table 6. Current DoD language capability in investment
languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
Table 7. Non-citizen accessions, FY95-02, by race/ethnic
background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
Table 8. Three-month attrition estimates by race/ethnicity
and citizenship status: FY95–FY02 accessions . . . .
57
Table 9. Three-month attrition estimates by education,
accession waiver, service, and other variables . . . .
58
Table 10. Marginal effects on 3-month attrition for non-citizen
recruits, by service and race/ethnic background:
accessions in FY95–FY02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
Table 11. Three-month attrition estimates for FY95–FY02
accessions: differences by service . . . . . . . . . . .
60
Table 12. Marginal effects for 3-month attrition: education
and ability background differences by service . . . .
62
127
Table 13. 36-month attrition estimates by race/ethnicity
and citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
Table 14. Attrition estimates by education, accession waiver,
service, and other variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
Table 15. Marginal effects on 36-month attrition for non-citizen
recruits: by service and race/ethnic background . . 66
Table 16. 36-month attrition estimates: differences
by service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
Table 17. Percentage of non-citizen accessions in each
subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
Table 18. Marginal effects for the probability of becoming a
U.S. citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Table 19. Estimated months until citizenship. . . . . . . . . .
81
Table 20. DoD Standard Source documents, . . . . . . . . . .
90
Table 21. Hostile countries/countries of instability . . . . . .
95
Table 22. Some Army MOSs requiring U.S. citizenship . . . .
97
Table 23. Some Navy ratings requiring U.S. citizenship . . . .
97
Table 24. Some Air Force AFSCs requiring U.S. citizenship . .
98
Table 25. Some Marine Corps MOSs requiring
U.S. citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Table 26. Variable definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Table 27. Logistic regressions for 3-month attrition . . . . . . 105
Table 28. Logistic regressions with non-citizen race/ethnic
interactions for 3-month attrition: FY95-FY02
accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
128
Table 29. Mean values and marginal effects from the
3-month attrition logit regression: FY95 to
FY02 accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 30. Marginal effects from the 36-month attrition
logit regression: FY95–00 accessions . . . . . . . . . 111
Table 31. Mean values and marginal effects from becoming
a U.S. citizen logit regressions: FY95-FY02 noncitizen accessions, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table 32. Mean values and coefficients from time-tocitizenship regressions: FY95 to FY02 non-citizen
accessions who became U.S. citizens while in
the military, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
129
CRM D0011092.A2/ Final